h.g. muller wrote:
At 06:53 24-8-2009 -0600, Eric Mullins wrote:
This is it in a nutshell: I discovered we are bundling extras for
which we can't just do anything we want with. That's my main
concern, but it also led me down a path of questioning the wisdom of
bundling anything at all, even stuff we can do what we want with.
I'm not concerned with file sizes. I never once mentioned that as an
issue.
Oh, I must have misunderstood then what you meant by "relatively small
install file". Perhaps you meant small functionality...
> Now that I think of it, I like this a lot. Make winboard basically
standalone and thus a relatively small install file.
I don't care about filesizes. You did misunderstand that-- perhaps it
was my fault for not being clear.
As I said, we can do both, one doesn't have to exclude the other. We
seem to have different priorities:
You say: if some important enhancement of functionality could not be
stored in git, we should not provide the functionality.
I would in that case say: then we don't store it it git.
My aim is to provide functionality to WinBoard users. Not to increase
usage of git.
Fortunately there currently don't seem to be important problems in
this respect. I am pretty sure that most people who
gave permission to distribute their stuff would not mind at all if it
is also downloadable from the git repository.
That they give permission for git use isn't the point (and they haven't
yet anyway. BTW, do we have anything in writing from these sources, and
what about the new images that are part of the program for variants,
etc.). It's that we even need to obtain permission at all. These files
are not freely distributable. Why is it hard to understand the inherent
problem with that for this project?
I don't see the problem with simply having the bundling occur by a 3rd
party. In this case, you, but in a capacity outside of the winboard
project. Or anyone else. I think it's something to be encouraged,
actually. But again, not as part of the project.
In fact most of the stuff we do include is GPL's or has even less
restrictions (open-source freeware). Much of what is
closed source is actually my own. [...]
You don't see a conflict of interest there? I do. Again, I bring up my
point which you ignored about bundling being analogous to Microsoft
bundling IE.
That leaves only Pulsar. Perhaps Sjeng would have been a better
choice. (Except
that it doesn't play Atomic, and I really like Atomic most of all ICC
variants.) But Mike Adams (Pulsar author) was very
helpful in debugging WB in combination with all the weird variants
Pulsar plays, and is actually eager to see it
optionally distributed with WB. Pulsar is not very big, it is just a
tiny add-on that provides a lot of FUNctionality for
the more casual board-game enthusiast.
