There's no reason not to make it available, and no reason to feel that that would require anything more from you (as far as support, etc.) You've done enough.
Ideally, the maintainers will incorporate your fixes. If not, you have still given back to the community.
A desire to avoid responsibility (no negative connotations intended, whatsoever) should not preclude you from sharing your code. Just call it "nonameVNC" and post the binaries (and source, naturally).
Jordan
At 09:34 PM 1/31/2003, Mike Smith wrote:
Ok folks, after seeing so many complaints about bugs, crashes, features not working in the Windows version of VNC 3.3.6, I just have to speak up.I took some time last year going through the various flavors of VNC trying to settle on one Windows version to work on. I finally decided on RealVNC mainly because it's been ported to the most platforms. So, I spent several months fixing bugs (including the server crash bug) and making speed improvements. I've finally gotten it to a point where I'm happy with using it in a production enviroment and where I feel it competes performance-wise with Remote Administrator. It even out-performs UltraVNC on a LAN in my informal testing. My question is: Now what? I don't want to release it as RealVNC 3.3.7 or 3.3.6a or 3.3.6whatever since that's not my perogative and I have nothing to do with RealVNC, I DON"T want to release it as MyCompanyName VNC ver.1.0 because I don't want to support it or answer emails about it, but I still want everybody to benefit from the improvements and fixes I made. I got a note back from RealVNC saying they would take a look at it for possibly including it in a future release, but that could be months from now. So, does anyone have any suggestions? - Mike _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
_______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
