From:	gt4558a AT acmey DOT gatech DOT edu (Rubicant)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Allegro Future
Date:	17 Nov 1996 18:16:14 GMT
Organization:	Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines:	26
Message-ID:	<56nkpe$rh@catapult.gatech.edu>
References:	<19961116 DOT 181103 DOT 4831 DOT 3 DOT chambersb AT juno DOT com> <QmXSfzO00YUn05L3s0 AT andrew DOT cmu DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	acmey-prism.gatech.edu
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

John David Doty (doty+@andrew.cmu.edu) 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.

Don't get me wrong (I started this whole thread to begin with).  Allegro
has been and will continue to be Shawn's.  Truly what I was suggesting was
something along the lines of a "temporary" Allegro package, with plenty of
comments making the fact that it is temporary and not "official".  I
wouldn't dream of trying to infringe on Shawn's rights.  He's way too nice
of a guy.  Really I just wanted Allegro to continue evolving.  Once Shawn
comes back, obviously he will be free to accept or reject any changes.
Also note that while Shawn did do an incredible amount of work on Allegro,
significant parts of it were made in large part by other people.  Just
check the thanks section.  Anyway, maybe a Allegro+ is order.  Also note
that regardless of the outcome, it should be clearly marked than any
additions will not neccessarily be supported in future releases (like his
disclaimer on certain parts of the bitmap structure).


--
						-- Rubicant --

- Raw text -