It may be theoretical, until the bnetd-type event comes along. Regarding Git, I don't value ordered numbers that much. They're not all that much more important than hashes, and tracking where code got forked and merged seems more useful to me in a distributed environment. Git's CLI is highly annoying to me, but I can live with it.
Things that seem core benefits for project such as GNUstep: - Git values smaller, more easily reviewable patches, while still letting them being sent in 'all at once'. - Git allows easier merging in such cases, while still staying 'up to date' in a fork. - Git more easily survives messing around with metadata, if absolutely needed. That means we can more easily add tools around it. Just an example of tools we could add: a web interface for code review integrated with a mailing list. Multiple people could review code, any contributor could sign-off on it, but at least one must sign-off on it. I don't think such a code reviewing tool would necessarily work out for GNUstep, but with SVN, we can't even think about it. On Sat Dec 21 2013 at 11:06:36 AM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller < [email protected]> wrote: > > Am 21.12.2013 um 11:40 schrieb David Chisnall: > > > > > On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:05, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hm. I start to wonder why is the copyright assignment needed at all to > get code into GNUstep? > > > > The FSF requires copyright assignment for two reasons. The first is > that they may wish to change the license. > > Well, why should that be done? > > > We've done this in GNUstep in the past, moving some GPL'd code to LGPL > when it was moved from an application into a library (this would be > simplified by making all of the GNUstep tools LGPLv2.1 or later, which > would also simplify distribution, but that's another issue). > > Ok, I see - but how often does it happen? And in that case (by using the > signed-off:) it is not too difficult to identify the authors. > > > > > The more important issue is that only the copyright holder has standing > to sue for copyright infringement. If someone uses GNUstep code in > violation of the license, we'd probably like the FSF to chase them. They > can't do this nearly as easily if the copyright is held by a group of > individuals. There's also the related issue that if someone reaches a > settlement with the FSF no one else can sue them over the same bit of code. > This is a problem for Linux, because a few kernel devs are somewhat > obsessive about the GPL and have a habit of suing companies over GPL > violations, but even if you settle with them there's no guarantee that no > other kernel devs will sue you. The FSF, as part of a settlement, sells a > retroactive commercial license for FSF software, so at the end of losing a > case against them you have the the license that you need and no one else > can sue you. This is a big stick that helps them in negotiation. > > Ok I see. But isn't that theoretical? How many such cases did exist in > the past 10 years? And how many patches and developers did we loose because > of missing assignment? > > > So, while copyright assignment is annoying, it's likely required as long > as GNUstep is distributed under a restrictive license. > > I always thought that GPL is not restrictive... Except one thing that > nobody can change the licence of someone else's code. > > > It's less important for the runtime, which is MIT licensed, because you > have to try really hard to violate the MIT license... > > Ok, I see. > > Nikolaus > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnustep mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
