Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/11/17/20:43:31
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, John David Doty wrote:
> Yes, I agree whole-heartedly. Just because the source is distributed
> for free, doesn't mean that the entire package can just be taken over by
> someone else. If you want, you can create a library called MyAllegro or
> something which you can say was "based on Allegro 2.1", but please,
> don't modify Allegro and then re-release it AS Allegro, especially
> without Shawn's permission.
I agree that it would be very wrong to mess with it and then release it as
a new Allegro or whatnot, but what if you do want to improve it, or
improve on it? Do we really want one hundred and seventy-five variants of
allegro, or what? For instance, I'm not sure if Allegro does real
wavetable MIDI (ala true software digital mixing like on an SB, I know the
GUS does this automatically) but that is sure something I would like to
add, and really, will HAVE to add. Now, I don't want to go around hacking
up Allegro, but what if I just sent the updated version along to Shawn and
asked him to do some kind of "official release"? That way, he could still
be sure noone was ripping up his library and making it unusuable, and we
could still benifit from whatever people wanted to add to it, no?
= Calvin =
--------------------------------------------------------------------
B013CD10B7A08EC3B2C8B940018BC133C2AAE2F9FECA75F2B407CD21B80300CD10C3
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-- I apologuise, Shaun began, but I would rather spinooze
you one from the grimm gests of Jacko and Esaup, fable one,
feeble too. Let us here consider the casus, my dear little cousis
(husstenhasstencaffincoffintussemtossemdamandamnacosaghcusa-
ghhobixhatouxpeswchbechoscashlcarcarcaract) of the Ondt and
the Gracehoper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
- Raw text -