Beta J was the last version.
Its filename: hfslip-1.7.10_beta_J.cmd
Its MD5: DF89784782AA5AD6A7AA21371FD18EBF
Well, that does help eleviate the situation somewhat. However, the person who finds HFSLIP on some freeware downloading site wouldn't think to look here first. Besides, the MD5SUM of the CMD file isn't as useful since HFSLIP is distributed mostly in a ZIP archive, but of course that problem could be helped (but not solved) by posting the ZIP's MD5SUM. That's not the point though.
Just so everyone understands what you're suggesting, this means TommyP would be giving up his Copyright on the work. Somehow I don't think he'd be okay with that. I could ask him to come and post his feelings on the matter however if really necessary.
Public domain works can be released with the Creative Commons license. I've seen this before. Furthermore, why is it so important that TommyP maintain the copyright on all the older versions of HFSLIP? If TommyP is simply planning to re-release HFSLIP again one day, he could easily called it "HFSLIPX" or something and put this new under his own copyright.
but I do believe my points do deserve some merit.
I think he won't agree. Check the license included. The source can be legally modified.
I was more emphasizing the counterfeit problems at the beginning. The "public domain" suggestion was just one brainstormed idea.
What were the technical reasons? Did Paypal not work? Did you e-mail Tom for his address to send a check? You should
tell have told him exactly what did not work.
I don't have a credit card. Because of my age (at the time) and bank account type, I could not send cheques, let alone make a PayPal account. Of course, this situation has changed of late, but at the time it was impossible. That's what I meant.
A rethink could have helped donations? What kind of rethink? You mean if Tom had sold it and required a license and proof of licensure before he provided support? He said a hundred times he didn't want to HAVE to support the project. He said he didn't like that it was like work. It was a hobby.
I wasn't referring to the amount of donations. I was refering to the lack of developers which joined the project. Essentially, TommyP/TomCat where in a situation where they were the sole developers accepted bug reports from people, who a lot of which could not fix the code on their own. Compare this to, say, Windows Classic Shell for Windows 7, or Explorer++.
I, Tomcat, and TommyP all spread the word on other sites. It didn't, and doesn't, matter. Ultimately, a LOT of people "just didn't get it." There are people who used it and who actually thought that it didn't slipstream. There are people who actually know about HFSLIP and prefer unattended methods (no, I know I could save myself a ton of work, I like doing things the hard way). It sounds absurd, but there you have it. People like pain. I hate to pick on others, but there's a guy here who has an extremely complex process for manual slipstreaming and he has a LOT of fans. What can we do? People like making their lives harder. It sounds sarcastic, but believe me, if you could spend any time in our shoes, you'd see it's absolutely true.
Fair enough. As I said in my original post, I was probably generalizing things. The benefit is that I get this information and better understanding of the situation.
There are reasons why there are many successful open-source Windows projects out there
Well, you're free to name some suggestions that we haven't tried, I guess. Too late now, but I am curious.
Explorer++, LiteStep, BB4Win.
and why HFSLIP never reaped the benefits of multiple developers.
And now I'm REALLY curious to hear your reasons. One of the most amazing projects of all time, a LiveCD of the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator on sourceforge, has lived and died several times for lack of developers. Each time it got resurrected, ONE guy took over. It's alive now thanks to ONE guy. Getting devs to work on something is not as easy as you seem to think. There were some contributions to the codebase but only Tomcat76 was a major developer. Heck even I did not contribute much of anything at all.
I never said I knew the reasons. I was simply pointing out that there had to be reasons of why HFSLIP didn't have more people working the source code. It could have been the way the site was laid out for all I know.
Everyone got a lot of free work and Tom felt frustrated. Now, the tables are turned. He doesn't visit this forum and he is free of the burden, and everyone else feels frustrated. But I am pretty sure that people's venting is not going to get him to return.
There seems to be a contradiction at play here. You say that TommyP is frustrated for putting so much work into his project with no compensation, be it development work or donations, from his users. I can understand this. From the way you word your statement it would be ideal for HFSLIP to take charge and get involved and work on the HFSLIP source. However, an environment to encourage this behaviour, on SourceForge or wherever, hasn't been created.
Again, I have probably generalized a lot in these posts. I also hope that I haven't alienated you FDV. My intention was not to start a battle with you or TommyP, just raise some questions about the rational for TommyP's choice. In the end, it is TommyP's choice of how he wants to host (or not host) the HFSLIP project, and I respect his viewpoint and his decision.