On Thu, 30 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 29 May 2002, at 19:59, Dexter wrote:
> Just a question: who determines what and who an authorized
> developper is? Should it be the registrar (i.e. me)? If yes, see this
> list clamoring for a defintion of who and what such an authorized
> developper is...
>
> Up to now, there is no such concept in this discussion, all
> developpers are equal.
Well, it's really simple, but there are a couple of ways it can be
assessed.
A developer is one who actively participates ind development.
I do not differentiate between commercial and voluntary developers, just
people who go to you and express an intent to develop something, anything.
In that respect, the list is not 'closed' because anyone who wants to be a
developer can be, if they agree to the extra license conditions of not
distributing development binaries to non-developers.
> I can see your good intentions here. However, until now, it wasn't
> my intention to have a "closed group" of developpers, with the
> others being, de facto, shut out.
If someone comes to you and asks to be a developer, they have expressed an
interest in developing for SMSQ, and I think that is the best
qualification for the developer role :o)
> Also, I presume that the goal of your proposal is to get round two
> problems:
> - distribution of souces via disk only
> - non-distribution of binaries
> I can already tell you that the first will not be maintained in the
> licence, since the consensus here seems to be that they should
> also be distributable via Email. However, it will not be possible to
> put them on a website; to maintain some sort of traceability.
Please let me clarify: The 'web site' would be a htaccess controlled area
that only developers could access, using their username and password.
Downloads would be logged, so there would be full traceability. In fact,
it would be more secure and traceable than email. Add in the FTP access
(same username and password) and you gain upload areas too.
> As to the second point, the licence allows you to distribute your
> binaries for test versions to 10 people. Is that really not enough?
> (and nothing in the licence says that you can't do this via email).
Developers will, by definition, have the knowledge to make their own
binaries from sources, so distribution of binaries amongst developers is
mostly a moot point, but you could try it and see how it goes, and if
something makes you (or TT) uncomfortable, we can alter the arrangement. I
would co-operate fully with your wishes.
> That WOULD be nice. However, I'm afraid that this is a bit
> optimistic, since I'm not sure that I will be informed of each and
> every development, and also, since most of us will be developping
> for free and for fun, setting (and keeping) deadlines like that will be
> very difficult!
If you're sat on the same mailing list as the developers, and they use it
to communicate to share problems, solutions, bug/feature alerts (eek, I
found a feature!) and such, I think a situation would naturally arise
where you would have a good idea of who is doing what, and so forth. Also,
because to some extent you would have access to the development sources of
various projects if people chose to use the facility, you also gain
because you can tell people if you see a conflict, or if they're breaking
the proposed style guide, long before they've committed to a certain path
or invested too much time and effort to change direction.
> Yes, I'll second that : comments please!!!!
Another added benefit is that as a group/community, we could produce a
coding/compilation FAQ, a separate public web site with various up-to-date
tools like compilers, monitors, etc, and a FAQ, which if well written and
maintained by contributors, would reduce the support burden on the
resellers, allow the developers to provide public support for their own
code online, and generally bring all the loose ends together.
For your consideration,
Dave
