On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulson <j...@radscan.com> escreveu:
I have no objection to supporting autotool builds for CDE (but we need
to not break or remove Imake support either).
Nice to hear it. Naturally, for the GNU build system, I'm thinking in
an approach different of that taken by the developers who have
designed the original Imake build recipes (and consequently that of
Oleksiy's patch which follow them closely). The original Imake files
are oriented towards a fixed set of software/hardware platforms ---
that's understandable, given the static nature of Imake-based build
systems and the proprietary history of CDE. However, the ideal
prospect GNU build system would, instead, adapt itself by testing for
low-level features at configuration time, without alluding to any
fixed set of rules based on a list of directives beforehand derived
from the knowledge of the target hardware and software.
Theoretically, one of the added benefit would be that the chances of
CDE building successfully on an uncommon system, which we don't know or
don't have access to, would increase.
Yes, I am familiar with autotools, having used it on another
opensource project. But Imake *works* *now*. I see your point
regarding the ifdef hell that might ensue, but you have clearly not
looked at the ifdef hell we already have :)
Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoid
being forced into a specific license if at all possible - this is why
we request MIT licensing.
Here we have a problem. In the GNU project we are mainly concerned
with user's freedom. We believe the GPLv3+ is the appropriate license
for programs like the ones CDE is composed of. Our policy, however,
is of contributing to existing projects under their licenses, in order
to facilitate collaboration, unless our changes are big enough that
copylefting them is justifiable. Nonetheless, CDE is a particular
case since all its code is released under LGPLv2+, even if developers
are requiring contributions to be MIT[1][sic] licensed, and as so we
deem important to maintain its copyleft status.
Ok, just to be clear -- ideological arguements don't mean anything to
me. I contribute to open source software because I want to. I don't
go into it trying to make a political point, I do it becaue I enjoy
it, or the software is important to me for some reason. And if
someone else can benfit from it (commercial or otherwise), so much the
better.
[...]
I'm not giving up any particular freedom, but not copylefting code
copyrighted by you is failing to protect users from any third party
that may want to take away their freedom in self-interest. The GNU
project believes that's harmful for the free software community and
society in general in the long run. That's why we don't agree with
CDE developers' policy of requiring contributions to be under a
permissive license.
Ok, well I'm not thinking in terms of GNU's "philosophy". If you
don't like a project, or it's licensing, don't contribute to it.
Let me explain the main reason why Peter and I thought that requiring
contributions be licensed as MIT (in the X11 sense) was a good idea:
When we were working to get CDE opensourced, Motif was also part of
the project. The problem was that unlike CDE, Motif had already been
semi-opensource under a different license. This meant that in order
to re-license Motif, all of the contributors (companies, individuals,
etc) who had contributed so much as a single line of code had to be
contacted, and their assent to this change recorded.
In many cases, these individuals (and in some cases, companies that
did not even exist anymore) could not be located. That meant that
their code had to be removed, and in certain cases (critical bug fixes
and the like) had to be re-implemented in a 'clean-room' environment
from scratch. This was time-consuming and expensive.
This delayed opensourcing both Motif and CDE for some time.
Eventually, we decided to release CDE anyway, since it did not have
that problem (all code was owned by TOG), and we still had no idea how
long it wold be before Motif was ready.
So far, I have had very few complaints about this requirement.
[...]
We like contributions. We aren't interested in ideology though, at
least I'm not.
That's a major disagreement between us. The GNU project, myself
included --- as a GNU hacker, holds that the ethical principles which
guide us in the defense of computer users' freedom are fundamental.
Well, I might give your words more credit if I could look in CDE's git
repo and see your contributions, but... :)
Also, I am absolutely not worried about HP or some other company
comming along and trying to release a proprietary version of CDE.
Also, if you fork, you are still bound by the same licening issues we
are.
That's true, but for us there is no issue because we can release the
resulting work as GPLv3+, exactly as we would like to.
Well, nothing is stopping you from doing so. Maybe others would join
you. I can't say. But to fork CDE for what seems primarily a
philisophical difference in licensing seems... a bit much. Talk is
cheap, code speaks louder.
[...]
--
Jon Trulson
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet."
--Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
