A New Player on the max web collection
While examineing the MaxWeb-o-sphear I happened apon this article written not in the useuall haunts of rather dull and lifeless MaxWeb so called "Dev" sites but on a wiki that seems a little absed on the MaxWeb

I quote it in it's fullness as it makes great reading:

"The GNU General License (v2) is a legal document it is a license to use and distribute code.
However there have been certain iregularities within the Max Web GNU v2 Implimentation.
These are detailed below.
footerUp to version 1.34 Max Web Portal was 'closed house' development and Max Web Edit was launched to open up the development model to address some seriouse lacking.
The first issue was whole bunches of code were not correctly documented. In fact they were not documented at all. The MWP 1.34 guy had hidden code all over the show to enforse the footer and keep it in place.
It turns out that he was over stepping his bounds and had little in the GNU Licnese to allow him to demand the footer be in place.
So Infinity re-did the footer code and killed of the bad code.
GNU MD5The MD5 code include carried the overbarring MWP lisence claim header dispite having no Max Web stuff in it.
While the header of comment giveing rights to use but not share as a snippit came second. This rases moral and ethical issues if nothing else.
MWE? 1.5Max Web Portal.info raises two new moral and ethical issues. First not enough is done to namespace this new project and mark the difference between it and the original development which has admitadly appeared to stall.
The OSI might likely say that this is a fair move on the part of the MWP 1.5 group who are using Open Source Development license (GNU v2).
However they are not useing the techniques of open source of development. It is still closed house like MWP 1.34 before it and Snitz before that.
They are currently examining the possibility of paying the way for Max Web and yet they talk of obscuring the code which would not make this OSI compliant dispite the license they use.
Becuase of this apparent lack of honour among the developers I have had cause to consider just how much of the footer they nag on about can be removed and still stick to the letter/spirit of the GNU v2.
Any experts? "

- posted by Matt the Hat @ 12:45 AM