I'm going to create a 1.3.1 "free" build

[Phat Bob]

Hello

I really hope this doesn't get me kicked from this list but I'm proposing to build 1.3.1 from source and make it available as a free download.

I need to sort out some logistics first (and, of course, actually build the thing) but I thought I'd post now as emotions seem to be running high and this might benefit a number of people.

I am not proposing *any* support - you download it and it works or it doesn't - but for those who can't use the MAS or can't/don't want to pay for the official copy, this could be an alternative.

I'll post again when I have something ready to go.

Thanks

Rob

[Chris Forsythe]

It seems wrong to me that you would build it and provide it but not support it. I honestly can't fathom why you would do the legwork but not support those who would then depend on *you*.

Building a fork or providing a download won't get you banned by the way, being a jerk does though. I'm not saying you're a jerk, just explaining about your concern there.

-- 
Chris Forsythe

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group.

To post to this group, send email to growld...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to growldiscuss...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.

[Travis Tilley]

Since the Growl team would still be getting potential support requests and issues for a third party build, it would be a bit more... courteous to change the name and artwork. It's the same kind of respect CentOS gives RedHat when they do third party builds of RedHat Enterprise Linux based on their freely provided source, and the same reason RedHat requested that their name not be directly associated... even if all the manuals and support documents were otherwise copied word for word.

But then again, CentOS also provides at least a basic level of support, even if they haven't been that great at keeping up with upstream changes lately.

Source code is available, free, and under a significantly more permissive license than the GPL. Anyone who wants to do it themselves can open xcode, turn off code signing, and hit build.

[Phat Bob]

On 8 Nov 2011, at 16:13, Travis Tilley <tti...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since the Growl team would still be getting potential support requests and issues for a third party build,

I will put a note on the download page that discourages this.

it would be a bit more... courteous to change the name and artwork.

Really?  That implies a fork to me.

It's the same kind of respect CentOS gives RedHat when they do third party builds of RedHat Enterprise Linux based on their freely provided source, and the same reason RedHat requested that their name not be directly associated... even if all the manuals and support documents were otherwise copied word for word.

I'll wait for Chris to request that, although this would simply be a "can't download from the MAS?  Get it here..." type affair.  It's not a fork; simply a compiled version.

But then again, CentOS also provides at least a basic level of support,

Indeed - I'm not and I'll be making that clear on the download page.

even if they haven't been that great at keeping up with upstream changes lately.

Source code is available, free, and under a significantly more permissive license than the GPL. Anyone who wants to do it themselves can open xcode, turn off code signing, and hit build.

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/growldiscuss/-/ceKaJg_6RFcJ.