Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 149
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by dBsooner View Post
    samkim, I would like to mention if you do not agree to it being licensed under the MIT Open Source License, then the webOS-Patches feed will not be able to distribute it. We will remove it from the feed if you do not agree. This is not a ploy, it is simply how the webOS-Patches GPL is setup.
    Yup. I'm in communication with Rod and Eric re this. I haven't made a final decision about the feed, but thanks for the warning.
  2.    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    These are the relevant quotes:
    Since the wiki doesn't have much of a discussion going on for each patch, I "assumed" that you were talking about the PreCentral threads, and that you felt free to take any software unless authors specifically opted out.

    When you said, "it is all open source," I thought that you were declaring that all patches were open source. From your latest post, it sounds like you still think all patches should be open source, but that you will comply with the law despite your beliefs. Am I still misinterpreting you?
    Yes, you are. "It is all open source" was a improper statement on my part. What that is referring to is the original webOS code is Open Source in the direct form of it is not obfuscated. The code itself can be modified by the end user at their discretion. A developer that modifies this open source code is, in theory, leaving the code "open" and readable by all.

    As far as thinking all patches should be open source, yes, I do. I site the same reasons Rod stated above.

    I agree 100% with what Rod states above. I honor all copyrights, if a patch wants to be licensed as closed source, I can respect that. However, it cannot be included in the webOS-Patches feed and will be removed.

    I apologize for misleading you. I respect your wishes. Would you like your patch to remain? A link to the MIT Open Source license that will be included with all patches in the webOS-Patches feed can be found in my previous post or the original post.
    dBsooner
    WebOS-Internals Member and Developer
    Donations Appreciated!

    Keep up to date with webOS-Patches via Twitter: @dBsooner

    Browse Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal - (Trac)
    Submit New Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
    Submit Updated Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by dBsooner View Post
    samkim, I would like to mention if you do not agree to it being licensed under the MIT Open Source License, then the webOS-Patches feed will not be able to distribute it. We will remove it from the feed if you do not agree. This is not a ploy, it is simply how the webOS-Patches GPL is setup.
    I would prefer that the policies of WebOS Internals not be stated as ultimatums to the developers who are creating content for the feeds.

    I am discussing options with Sam offline via email, and hope we can come to an agreement that both respects and protects the identification of the original authorship of patches (something that the MIT license does just as well as any closed source license), and also allows patches to be reviewed for security (another important feature of open source licenses), to be maintained and updated for newer (and older!) webOS versions even if the original author is no longer contactable (something that is important to ensure that patches do not stagnate and become unusable if the original author decides to move to Android instead), and to be be able to be used by Palm in a future webOS version (something which I hope everyone here has as a priority for making webOS better for everyone).

    The policies and conventions regarding patches should be a reflection of the consensus of the community in which the patches are produced and consumed, once the community has a comprehensive understanding of the goals and rationale behind various licensing preferences and policies stated by the groups that manage and publish those patches and the developers who create the patches in the first place.

    We're still in the "storming" phase of the normal "forming, storming, norming and performing" lifecycle of new collaborations. Let's not let the "storming" loose sight of the "performing" point that we all want to reach ...

    -- Rod
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Yup. I'm in communication with Rod and Eric re this. I haven't made a final decision about the feed, but thanks for the warning.
    There is no such ultimatum or warning from WebOS Internals. :-)

    Let's continue the discussion offline without people feeling the need to draw such public lines in the sand.

    -- Rod
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by dBsooner View Post
    Yes, you are. "It is all open source" was a improper statement on my part. What that is referring to is the original webOS code is Open Source in the direct form of it is not obfuscated. The code itself can be modified by the end user at their discretion. A developer that modifies this open source code is, in theory, leaving the code "open" and readable by all.
    Palm's proprietary webOS operating system code is absolutely not Open Source. It is proprietary code which is copyright by Palm and is not redistributable by anyone other than Palm and it's agents. We are not one of those agents. That is the whole reason why we need to distribute patches (which we believe do not infringe on the Palm copyright) instead of distributing complete modified files. Palm's code just happens to be in a form that is readable by humans, but that in no way implies any Open Source attributes.

    Whether or not such proprietary webOS code can be modified by an end-user is in the realm of the end-user, not the realm of those who create or distribute the patches.

    A developer that creates a patch for the proprietary webOS code retains full rights over the replacement code that they write. Again, whether this replacement code happens to be in a form that is readable by humans has no relationship to whether it is distributed under an open source license or not.

    We continue to strongly advise authors to license their patches under the MIT Open Source Licence, for all the reasons stated in earlier posts. We continue to respect the wishes of authors who do not agree with our rationale for licensing patches as MIT, and choose to license them otherwise, or who have not yet made an informed decision about which license they should choose for their work.

    -- Rod
    Last edited by rwhitby; 10/25/2009 at 06:55 PM.
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by dBsooner View Post
    I agree 100% with what Rod states above. I honor all copyrights, if a patch wants to be licensed as closed source, I can respect that. However, it cannot be included in the webOS-Patches feed and will be removed.
    Again, there is no such final ultimatum from WebOS Internals. We continue to work with authors to get the best outcome for the community as a whole which is compatible with the goals and motivations upon which the WebOS Internals group was founded.

    -- Rod
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  7.    #67  
    More patches have been added to the feed. Check them out!
  8. #68  
    We need to get StoneRynos "Shrink bookmark icons in Web start page" patch in there, he has everything and put the file on the thread for someone to make the patch, if I knew how I would, if anyone knows, please help, that patch is nedded, the huge icons suck!
  9.    #69  
    samkim, I would like to apologize for my previous statements and tone. I hope my behavior does not alter your view or relationship with the webOS Internals Group. I also hope we can put this behind us and continue to work together now and in the future. I truly meant no disrespect.

    I would also like to apologize to the webOS community for the statements I made that misrepresented the views of the WebOS-Internals Group. The statements I made may not reflect the current views of WebOS-Internals. I hope I did not change anyone’s feelings towards the WebOS-Internals Group or anyone involved. For any questions regarding WebOS-Internals Group policies or licensing, I would like to refer you to Rod Whitby.

    I look forward to continuing to serve the community by bringing the latest and greatest patches as they become available to me for distribution in the WebOS-Patches feed.

    Sincerely,
    Daniel B
    dBsooner
    WebOS-Internals Member and Developer
    Donations Appreciated!

    Keep up to date with webOS-Patches via Twitter: @dBsooner

    Browse Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal - (Trac)
    Submit New Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
    Submit Updated Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
  10. #70  
    Daniel,
    Thanks for that. We're good.
    Let's move forward.

    Regards,
    Sam
  11.    #71  
    The webOS-Patches feed has been updated with several new patches. We are now at a total of 91 patches in the feed for 1.2.1 and 23 patches fully backported to 1.1.3.

    I hope to hit 100 by Wednesday. Come on Dev's, let's get some more patches submitted.
    dBsooner
    WebOS-Internals Member and Developer
    Donations Appreciated!

    Keep up to date with webOS-Patches via Twitter: @dBsooner

    Browse Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal - (Trac)
    Submit New Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
    Submit Updated Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
  12.    #72  
    The webOS-Patches feed has been updated with several new patches. We are now at a total of 91 patches in the feed for 1.2.1 and 23 patches fully backported to 1.1.3.

    I hope to hit 100 by Wednesday. Come on Dev's, let's get some more patches submitted.
    dBsooner
    WebOS-Internals Member and Developer
    Donations Appreciated!

    Keep up to date with webOS-Patches via Twitter: @dBsooner

    Browse Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal - (Trac)
    Submit New Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
    Submit Updated Patches @ WebOS-Patches Web Portal
  13. #73  
    92 is waiting for you whenever you have a chance.
  14. #74  
    Why are these patches named so differently?
    • Dialpad Tones Off
    • Enable Dialpad Vibration

    To make it easier to understand, could they be named to:
    • Dial Tones Off
    • Dial Tones Off+Vibration

    Isn't that really the only difference or am I missing something?

    The one I really want would be:
    • Dial Tones+Vibration

    ...with both tones and vibration.

    And doesn't every patch Enable something on, something off, something to be different? Why have Enable in any patch name? Don't all patches enable something?

    - Craig
    Last edited by Milominderbinder; 10/27/2009 at 02:31 PM.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Milominderbinder View Post
    Why are these patches named so differently?
    Dialpad Tones Off
    Enable Dialpad Vibration

    To make it easier to understand, could they be named to:
    Dial Tones Off
    Dial Tones Off+Vibration

    Isn't that really the only difference or am I missing something?

    The one I really want would be:
    Dial Tones+Vibration

    ...with both tones and vibration.

    And doesn't every patch Enable something on, something off, something to be different? Why have Enable in any patch name? Don't all patches enable something?

    - Craig
    This brings up an interesting question:

    Should the titles of patches be purely at the discretion of the person who submits an individual patch, or should organisation of the whole patch repository be taken into account as Craig requests above?

    -- Rod
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  16. elryon's Avatar
    Posts
    715 Posts
    Global Posts
    720 Global Posts
    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    This brings up an interesting question:

    Should the titles of patches be purely at the discretion of the person who submits an individual patch, or should organisation of the whole patch repository be taken into account as Craig requests above?

    -- Rod
    maybe have an option for the person submitting it. I for one don't care that much if the title is changed of any of my patches.. especially if it makes them easier to find/use.
    Avatar on Left Patch
    Call Rejecter Patch
    Make your messanger look like the iphone's
    SMS tone per Contact
    No Alert During call

    Thanks are always appreciated or for a really big Thanks you can always:
    (it can go a long way to convince my fiancee that this is worth my time)

    Please feel free to PM for more direct assistance.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Milominderbinder View Post
    To make it easier to understand, could they be named to:
    Dial Tones Off
    Dial Tones Off+Vibration

    Isn't that really the only difference or am I missing something?

    The one I really want would be:
    Dial Tones+Vibration

    ...with both tones and vibration.
    Note that merging of patches is also a reason for using open source licensing. If we accept closed source licensing of patches, then there will never be an opportunity to merge and reduce the overall number of unique patches as you have suggested above.

    What is the community reponse on this important question?

    Do we want a proliferation of slightly different closed source patches, or do we want the community to be able to merge similar patches by including preference items, thereby achieving productivity gains by having multiple people being able to support a merged patch?

    -- Rod
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  18. #78  
    Personally, I'm 100% in favor of allowing patches to be merged, even if it means not being able to accept a "closed source" patch.

    Patches, by their very nature, are just taking somebody else's work and altering it. The very notion of a "closed source" patch is ridiculous. Even the virtual keyboard, which really required some fantastic original work, is only possible because of heavy dependency on the on-screen symbol keyboard that Palm distributed.

    If merging will allow for cleaner feeds and a simpler user experience, everybody wins.
  19. #79  
    I'm all for merging. It cuts down on confusion, and there's enough of that already.
    Tim Carroll, Blogger
  20. #80  
    just wandering if the no-browser-gc-flag patch has been submitted yet ? i cant find it anywhere in the forums ,sorry for the interruption !
    ĦṔ-Ḷṫ-Ŧḯη
    Here is a direct link to webOS Doc for all carriers
    http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/...octor_Versions
    P.S. if i have helped you and you are thankful please hit the thanks button to the right---->
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions