Vote: Allow 3rd-party distribution of ROS through XDCC Bot.

[Alex Ionescu]

Hi,

Right now, someone has set up an XDCC IRC bot to distribute copies of 
ReactOS. While I welcome the move, it raises a question on who is 
responsible for the quality of those files. Even if the person means no 
harm, the files can get corrupted/infected by the following events:

    1) Download corruption
    2) Viral infection
    3) Hard-disk damage

And perhaps many more. In all cases, this would result in unusable, 
dangerous or even damaging releases of ReactOS, which we could not 
control. As such, I propose a vote:


[ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS through the #ros-xdcc 
channel and ROS-XDCC-001 bot. (support and encourage this distribution)

[ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS, but it must clearly 
distance itself from officially supported releases (tolerate but do not 
support this distribution)

[ ] No, only sourceforge and other official ReactOS distribution points 
should be used.


Myself I vote for the first choice, but I would like the following to be 
done:

    1) Create MD5 Hashes to verify authenticity
    2) Set up official communications with the bot's maintainer and 
establish a set of guidelines.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Jason Filby]

Another question is: can we really say limit people from
redistributing ReactOS? I don't think that our license(s) prohibit
this.

Perhaps some guidelines for such people are all that is needed.

Cheers
Jason

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:37:04 -0500, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>   Hi,
>  
>  Right now, someone has set up an XDCC IRC bot to distribute copies of
>  ReactOS. While I welcome the move, it raises a question on who is
>  responsible for the quality of those files. Even if the person means no
>  harm, the files can get corrupted/infected by the following events:
>  
>      1) Download corruption
>      2) Viral infection
>      3) Hard-disk damage
>  
>  And perhaps many more. In all cases, this would result in unusable,
>  dangerous or even damaging releases of ReactOS, which we could not
>  control. As such, I propose a vote:
>  
>  [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS through the #ros-xdcc
>  channel and ROS-XDCC-001 bot. (support and encourage this distribution)
>  
>  [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS, but it must clearly
>  distance itself from officially supported releases (tolerate but do not
>  support this distribution)
>  
>  [ ] No, only sourceforge and other official ReactOS distribution points
>  should be used.
>  
>  Myself I vote for the first choice, but I would like the following to be
>  done:
>  
>      1) Create MD5 Hashes to verify authenticity
>      2) Set up official communications with the bot's maintainer and
>  establish a set of guidelines.
>  
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Magnus Olsen]

only if they tell it is 3d part distribution
like redhat, suse, gentoo does. and if
they have change anything from the offical version


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jason Filby" <jason.filby(a)gmail.com>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)reactos.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Vote: Allow 3rd-party distribution of ROS through
XDCCBot.


>   Another question is: can we really say limit people
> from
>  redistributing ReactOS? I don't think that our license(s) prohibit
>  this.
>
>  Perhaps some guidelines for such people are all that is needed.
>
>  Cheers
>  Jason
>
>  On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:37:04 -0500, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
wrote:
> >   Hi,
> >
> >  Right now, someone has set up an XDCC IRC bot to distribute copies of
> >  ReactOS. While I welcome the move, it raises a question on who is
> >  responsible for the quality of those files. Even if the person means no
> >  harm, the files can get corrupted/infected by the following events:
> >
> >      1) Download corruption
> >      2) Viral infection
> >      3) Hard-disk damage
> >
> >  And perhaps many more. In all cases, this would result in unusable,
> >  dangerous or even damaging releases of ReactOS, which we could not
> >  control. As such, I propose a vote:
> >
> >  [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS through the #ros-xdcc
> >  channel and ROS-XDCC-001 bot. (support and encourage this distribution)
> >
> >  [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS, but it must clearly
> >  distance itself from officially supported releases (tolerate but do not
> >  support this distribution)
> >
> >  [ ] No, only sourceforge and other official ReactOS distribution points
> >  should be used.
> >
> >  Myself I vote for the first choice, but I would like the following to be
> >  done:
> >
> >      1) Create MD5 Hashes to verify authenticity
> >      2) Set up official communications with the bot's maintainer and
> >  establish a set of guidelines.
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >  Alex Ionescu
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
> >  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Royce Mitchell III]

Jason Filby wrote:

>  Another question is: can we really say limit people
> from
> redistributing ReactOS? I don't think that our license(s) prohibit
> this.
>
> Perhaps some guidelines for such people are all that is needed.
>
>   
>  
+1

and a warning on our site about the possibilities of 3rd parties 
injecting mal-ware into the code.

[WaxDragon]

Like anyone cares what I say. ;0)

   I would think that allowing 3rd parties to distribute relabeled and
possibly modified install CD's is a bad idea.  I can see the day when
someone joins #reactos and asks why ReactOS 1.0 just ate their hard
drive, and wants support.  Of course they don't mention it's FooBar
ReactOS 1.0, just ReactOS 1.0, and we are all confused since SVN is at
0.4.1.

   I don't think you should disallow redistribution, but not actively
support it, that is what sourceforge is for.

I guess that means I'm:

[X] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS, but it must clearly
distance itself from officially supported releases (tolerate but do not
support this distribution)


On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:37:04 -0500, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>   Hi,
>  
>  Right now, someone has set up an XDCC IRC bot to distribute copies of
>  ReactOS. While I welcome the move, it raises a question on who is
>  responsible for the quality of those files. Even if the person means no
>  harm, the files can get corrupted/infected by the following events:
>  
>      1) Download corruption
>      2) Viral infection
>      3) Hard-disk damage
>  
>  And perhaps many more. In all cases, this would result in unusable,
>  dangerous or even damaging releases of ReactOS, which we could not
>  control. As such, I propose a vote:
>  
>  [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS through the #ros-xdcc
>  channel and ROS-XDCC-001 bot. (support and encourage this distribution)
>  
>  [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS, but it must clearly
>  distance itself from officially supported releases (tolerate but do not
>  support this distribution)
>  
>  [ ] No, only sourceforge and other official ReactOS distribution points
>  should be used.
>  
>  Myself I vote for the first choice, but I would like the following to be
>  done:
>  
>      1) Create MD5 Hashes to verify authenticity
>      2) Set up official communications with the bot's maintainer and
>  establish a set of guidelines.
>  
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>   

-- 
The cheese stands alone.

[James Tabor]

Alex Ionescu wrote:
>   Hi,
>  
>  Right now, someone has set up an XDCC IRC bot to distribute copies of 
>  ReactOS. While I welcome the move, it raises a question on who is 
>  responsible for the quality of those files. Even if the person means no 
>  harm, the files can get corrupted/infected by the following events:
>  
>     1) Download corruption
>     2) Viral infection
>     3) Hard-disk damage
>  
>  And perhaps many more. In all cases, this would result in unusable, 
>  dangerous or even damaging releases of ReactOS, which we could not 
>  control. As such, I propose a vote:
>  
>  
>  [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS through the #ros-xdcc 
>  channel and ROS-XDCC-001 bot. (support and encourage this distribution)
>  
>  [X] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS, but it must clearly 
>  distance itself from officially supported releases (tolerate but do not 
>  support this distribution)
>  
>  [ ] No, only sourceforge and other official ReactOS distribution points 
>  should be used.
>  
>  
>  Myself I vote for the first choice, but I would like the following to be 
>  done:
>  
>     1) Create MD5 Hashes to verify authenticity
>     2) Set up official communications with the bot's maintainer and 
>  establish a set of guidelines.
>  
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu 
Okay I'll bite!

Must MUST distance the ros development team from all third party distributions!

Miles and miles and miles ,,,, ,, , ,,, .

Do you want to be sued like M$ (aka SCO) did with IBM? I notice that Linus was
untouched by them too.

Well?
James