On 30-Dec-08 9:00, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:495### [at] hotmailcom...
>>> The redistribution of the beta source code is prohibited. There won't be 
>>> a permission for anyone to distribute the beta source code or binary in 
>>> any other form. The purpose of making the beta source code available is 
>>> to get submissions of bug fixes that will be added to the official beta 
>>> source code and beta binaries - assuming they work, of course ;-)
>>>
>> I think a relevant question here is: what is a distribution of source. If 
>> clipka sends the source or a binary by regular mail to e.g. Thomas is that 
>> distribution? or must it be publicly available to be one. If it is the 
>> first then collaboration to implement and test improvements of beta source 
>> is effectively impossible. I can think of reasons to do it that way. One 
>> would be that source in this beta (double beta?) stage should be 
>> coordinated by a POV team member. But, which one should that be? In this 
>> specific case of radiosity: who is coordinating that and would that person 
>> in this case give permission to create a test version for a selected group 
>> to use?
>>
>> Another one: if clipka had started from the 3.16 source would that have 
>> made a difference?
> 
> 
> Right. The Real World is tougher than I imagined (and rightly so, I suppose) 
> :-)
> 
> We need a creative solution to solve this conundrum, because it would be too 
> absurd if, for legal reasons, improvement testing of beta elements could 
> not proceed one way or another. 

The issue only raised it's head now because the beta source is 
available. Precisely for the reason that it can be improved by others 
that the regular POV team. It seems that they did not completely think 
through what the consequences would be if someone would actually do it. ;)
I'd be very interested in what Chris has to say about it. He seems a bit 
quite.


> I suppose that the best way to go would be 
> to implement Clipka's work in some beta, have it tested and reported back by 
> the community. Following which, decisions can be made about further 
> implementation or trashing.
> 
> My world view is simple, I know, but we have to start somewhere.

There are a number of ways to solve it, roughly in order of (my) preference:
- as you suggest, put it in a regular beta 3.17
- create a working group of clipka and a select group of beta testers to 
tackle this  radiosity issue under supervision of a team member.
- give clipka (and future similar cases) permission to do so for a 
limited time and only for this specific test (I think the legal wording 
allows for special permissions from the POV team)
- add clipka (temporarily) to the team.
- handle everything by regular (encrypted) mail and don't tell anyone.

Any more alternatives?

Post a reply to this message