Started by VS, February 05, 2009, 02:13:43 PM
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: VS on August 21, 2009, 04:00:10 PMFabio is always slow, behind the scenes, and surprises everyone. I guess we've got to wait for a surprise
Quote from: sdog on October 13, 2009, 07:32:08 PMit wasn't clear to me how restrictive the licence under wich the non-free content of pak128 was used is regarding the sources.
Quote from: sdog on October 13, 2009, 07:32:08 PMdo items 2 and 3 mean that the free content's sources will only be publicly available when the missing things are completely available, or those necessary for pak128 to work are available?
Quote from: sdog on October 13, 2009, 07:32:08 PMthe great possibility i see when pak128 becomes open is that there could be quite a lot of branches, practicaly everyone who likes (and can) modifying it for himself.
Quote from: sdog on October 13, 2009, 07:32:08 PMi'm not so sure what you mean with breaking the community. would you consider different forks and branches of the sourcecode as such a break? would you consider the linux community, as an example to make the question less abstract, as broken or fractured?
Quote from: sdog on October 13, 2009, 07:32:08 PMi read in another thread that makeobj would ignore parameters not specified in it's build. if that's the case dat files containing parameters for experimental could be compiled for trunk without change of files.
Quote from: sdog on October 13, 2009, 07:32:08 PMthe only problem i see immediately is the maintenance, exp. offers running costs and fixed monthly costs (...)
Quote from: sdog on October 13, 2009, 07:32:08 PMwhat is the status of the .dat files of non free content?
Quote from: fabio on October 13, 2009, 09:33:21 PMfor instance, i think all dat entries for exp only (e.g. reversibility, comfort level, weight limits) could be put in dats. when running makeobj they will be ignored, but we could run a second time makeobj-exp and compile pak128-exp.balancing, instead, should be made for std.instead, way constraints (a cool feature i would really love) would probably create mess in pak128-std.
Quote from: VS on August 21, 2009, 02:28:26 PMSo, perhaps the list should be refreshed.