Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
Posts: 551 from 2007/7/29
> How did they get that?
Maybe as hexadecimal program listings printed on paper? I mean, how's the exact handover process relevant?
The form of handover is totally relevant because it could clear up the whole story, the legality of the past releases and the future releases of Maus/Böckelmann (M/B from now on). There are so many different versions of this story around that we do not know the real one.
- Did they get it officially or not? From stuntzi or someone else?
- Under which conditions and which license?
- If “official”, why did he give right to create a second official version using the same name misleading people?
- OR did someone “unintentionally” send M/B a source archive?
- Or intentional although not allowed/”just in good will”?
- Or was it “dropped” somewhere and they got informed about it?
- Was it one single archive or a permanent access to the CVS? Did stuntzi (or someone else? Who then?) send them a single arichive with a version of an old MUI4 beta?
This makes huge differences and creates questions like:
- Was that onoly for the purpose of getting OWB to work or to do with it whatever they want?
- Did he (or someone else) give M/B access to the CVS? Where they allowed to use versions later than the archive that they got (in case they got one)?
- Do they still have access to the CVS? If so, why?
- Did stuntzi grant them the right to create an (official?) MUI fork (knowing or accepting to become incompatible) based on this single beta archive or based on any other distribution like the CVS repository?
- Or … or … or …?
These are all different distribution channels of “they got the MUI source” and this is why Yasu’s question is so relevant. But how it was? Eeveryone says different, so only stuntzi could clear this up and tell how he did it and what his purpose/what license/right he gave out. Only then we could understand what happened and why this conflict came up.