[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [livid-dev] oms release
* Mitch Allmond <gte203h@prism.gatech.edu> [20010201 17:08]:
> Oms doesn't suck. I never said it did. However, no matter how talented you
> guys are, oms will never be what it could be without a license. There are
> always issues in reverse engineering and you can bet on problems with it.
> If dell or ximian would pay for a license, then everything would be fine
> and dandy. I'm just trying to give constructive criticism.
>
Everything would not be fine and dandy. I'm sure the license doesn't
allow an opensource code release. And probably anyone that looks at
specs is bound by NDAs. That's not what we want.
There are some really talented developers here... I'm sure its just a
matter of time. I'd rather wait for code I can look at then depending
on a blackbox object file from some company. Plus it's doubtful that
would be allowed either. I'm sure dvdca knows that an attempt would be
made to reverse engineer that object file.
-dave
--
David I. Lehn <dlehn@vt.edu> | http://www.lehn.org/~dlehn/
Computer Engineering Graduate @ Virginia Tech in sunny Blacksburg, VA