| From: | Matt Sealey |
| Date: | 22 Apr 2001 at 18:50:15 |
| Subject: | Re: Common misconception (was Re: Voyager Image Decoders) |
Hello Mike
On 22-Apr-01, you wrote:
> Hi Andy, on 22-Apr-01 17:04:23 you wrote:
>
>> As for MUI wasn't it do with with licencing agreements, as in Stuntz wanted
>> (quite rightly) to be paid a fee for the inclusion of MUI and it's use but
>> H&P wanted him to hand over the source for free like what happened with the
>> awful, awful classact. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but that's
>> what I heard.
>
> I never heard the reasoning behind Stuntzi not wanting MUI included with the
> OS, but what you've typed sounds very believable. :|
But it's bullshit. First of all, H&P wouldn't have expected it for free. Second
of all, they didn't get Reaction for free either: Tim (Tom?) and Chris got paid
for it, Tim got paid late and made a fuss over it, even :P
Stuntzi didn't want MUI in there because he didn't want it in a slack hacky
superficial OS upgrade like OS3.5 - especially since before OS3.5 was even
re-activated under Gateway's little regime, MorphOS was in active development..
.. (which is also why Vapor tend towards PowerUP.. preparation. Commitment)
Thanks
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/