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> 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 --