Afternoon,
I have grave misgivings about this "NetSurf-m68k" port of NetSurf.
My main objections are continued infringement of the GPL by the people
responsible (mainly in the not distributing sources wherever binaries
are held. While they have an SVN server on Sourceforge, it contains no
checkins since August, and most of them lack log messages, and Aminet
only has source packages six months out of date compared to the binary
copies.
Secondly is their use of the NetSurf name. Their port is essentially a
fork, and they have repeatedly refused to accept our advice
(specially about the approach they have taken in using a debug
convenience feature to build their product with) and produced patches
that are unmergable. I fear that any problems their port has may cause
fingers to be unfairly pointed at us, giving us a bad name unduly and
possibly increasing support load. What makes this doubly insulting is
them asking for donations to support their port.
They have also continually pestered Vince privately via email, despite
repeated pleas for them to cease to do so.
What I would like to see:
1) For them to mandate a system of development that guarentees
that the source for any binaries they release is available
from the same location the binaries are (I'm looking at you,
Aminet.)
2) For them to change the name of the browser to something
other than NetSurf, and for them to state clearly in their
documentation and help that it is completely unsupported by
and unrelated to the NetSurf Project.
3) Use the mailing list for what it is meant for, and not email
developers directly.
If everything were perfect, I'd also like to see:
3) For them to listen to our advice, and possibly integrate an
AmigaOS 3 port into our version control system.
B.
