On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:27:37 -0500 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Tuesday, 29 November 2005, at 12:25:54 (+0900), > Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > > as per xcomps own words - he is too busy to work on it. he would > > like to, but can't. > > So what? That doesn't make him any less a developer. It just makes > him a busy developer. Something you and I know a little something > about. yes - but its not a temporary condition. xcomps life changed ina way where he'll be ultra-busy for many years to come. if you talk with him. i'll let him divulge his life's details. and it shows that entrance basically has fallen into dormant status ever since. > > considering it has bugs, issues, things like simply not working in > > xinerama, still managing to do re-start loops fo x, not handling > > failed loing scripts gracefully... i have listed all these > > before. and basically nothing really gets done. it's not goign > > anywhere. it's dormant. it's on minimal life support on a good day. > > That's not a fair assessment. Yes, there are specific problems. But > not a single one of them is a show-stopper. I use entrance on every > system I have, and the simple fact is that it performs flawlessly more > than 99% of the time. i consider them showstoppers. but more important is they exist and nothnig is being done about them. that is how it stands right nowe, and has for a long time now. > Having bugs that don't get fixed right away doesn't make it dead. I > still remember numerous conversations regarding a certain focus bug in > E 0.16, even back when you were still actively maintaining it. And > it's still not dead. sure. but bugs are not gettign fixed not are features really moving forward. its pretty immoble. > > frankly- this is where we differ. if it was alive, ibukun would be > > answering these mails, patching the code, improving it, working on > > current issues etc. etc. etc. fact is - that is not happening. i > > know he's busy and i dont blame him for it. > > Still doesn't make it dead. Dormant, perhaps, but not dead. a project with mo ACTIVE maintainer and existing known problems and no improvements happening is "dead" by virtual of it simply having been neglected long enough to become so. a month or 2 or 3 of neglecy - fine. month after month of it with no changes in sight... thats another matter. if xcomp said "hey - i'm working on stuff offlien atm and i'll get out of busy and have time in a month or so" that'd be one thing. but he's committed to thnigs for many years to come that will not give him time. > > whoever works on it the most "takes over" by defacto. there is no > > wonership system. welcome to open source. > > Bullshit. That's not open source. That's anarchy. Someone can fork > the project, give it a new name, and continue onward (in accordance > with the license, of course). But that doesn't mean they can take > over the project itself. No more than someone could come along and > fork Enlightenment and continue calling it Enlightenment while > developing a conflicting product. they can. because a person who alreayd has cvs access who starts working on it WILL become just that. they dont have to fork it and take it elsewhere. they can work on it in-place. > > anyone who takes the code ans runs with it, adnd if there is no > > competition (ie no one else is working on it) becomes the new > > owner/maintainer by defacto. > > Again, that's not your call. If you want to treat E that way, fine. > But your word is not law for entrance, and copyright law is on > Ibukun's side, not yours. errr. copyright is not the issue. the MOMENt ANYONE contributes code and attaches their name to it (in AUTHORs) they claim co-copyright on THAT code and thus the whole project. the project as a whole cannot be relicensed under a different copyright without the consent of all authors. if their code is removed then that is ok. copyright ownership gives you no control over makign releases, modifying the code in cvs or any fork anywhere etc. beyond meeting the copyright license obligations. the copyright does nto give ibukun, me or anyone else any special powers to stop peolpe from contributing to it. people who control cvs acces do - in terms of stopping access to the cvs code. it still doesnt stop independant forks. > > this isn't the UN and some beurocracy where you need all the red > > tape and signing off on things. he who does the work gets the > > credit, and gets control. ibukun sure knows mroe about entrance than > > almsot anyone and thus is a good soruce of info and help,a nd is in > > the best position to work on it effectively, but anyone able to > > "school up" si then on equal footing, and thus he who does the work > > - wins. > > It's not a contest. Nobody wins or loses. Anyone is free to work on > open source software, but that isn't to say anyone can do anything > they want with it. It's what keeps Sun from calling their next > desktop environment Enlightenment. actually they can. there is no "law" stopping them as we dont have a trademark on the name as such. fact is it IS a free-for all. > > so by your theory - ibukun could simply idle here for the next 10 > > years, and not do anything to entrance - and until he officially > > says "i let go" its all his and no one can do anything in terms of > > releases etc. that's utterly stupid. > > Whether it's stupid or not is irrelevant. That is reality. And it's > not my theory either. it's not reality. 1. ANYWAY with cvs access can write to and modify entrance's code. they are fre to incriment versions, add features and what not. they can make tarballs. if they have cvs acces they can make tarball file releases. they are able to upload them to sf.net. anyone with website access can put up announments, they can mail the e-announce list and moderators can approve announcements. it is perfectly possible, feasible ANd legal. the ONLY thing stopping it is possibly peolpe like you whit the view that the only person who can do it is xcomp who is... too busy to do it anyway and is NOT doing it anyway - so u'll be sitting aroudn waiting a bloody long time for it to happen. the fact is that this is nto an ivory tower. it's a bazaaar. "leaders" exist because they happen to earn respect of peolpe by 1. knowing shit, 2. doing shit, 3. making stuff happen. 4. having a long history of this. if someone drops out from these things then there is room for someone else to pick up the ball and run with it. they dont neeed to submit forms and have them signed in triplicate by the vogon minister for bearocratic bumbling. :) > Like I said, someone else can create a fork, but they cannot usurp > control of entrance itself. if they have cvs access - they can modify it directly. the only thing stopping that is them not having acces or someone removing their access. if they go removing/changing copyright/author info i guarantee that WILL happen. and files will be restored to where they were before the bad changes. iff they do a good job - that will not happen. see further above. > > one thing i will say is that *I* will never produce a release of > > entrance unless i take ownership. i will make no patches and fix no > > bugs, unless they annoy me enough to do so. one day i might take > > over if i get time - but i likely won't. fact is - by DEFACTO if you > > dont work on something AND someone else then does a tonne of work - > > the new person becomes maintainer. > > That is not a fact. That is an idealistic utopian pipe dream. That it's not. it's how it works around this neck of the woods. there is no ivory tower with forms to sign in triplicate. > is an attempt to live in a world where no one owns anything and > everyone contributes selflessly to the greater good. Even Stallman, > the self-proclaimed deity of collaborative software and communal > living, admits that *somebody* has to own the stuff or everybody > loses. and if the person who "owns" it vanishes? stops working on it? has no time? then it sits and rots (well just goes nowehere)? and no one is allowed to touch it without his express approval? come on! if someone wants to pick up the ball and keep runing wiht it - or more than 1 person. - why not? the original author doesnt lose credit. he still has the full respect and admiration for having picke dup the ball and run with it as far as they did. now a new set of people keep runing with it. you seem to have something against that? > Taking over a project without the owner's consent is no different from > regurgitating it under your own name without giving credit where it's > due: you're taking actions which only the copyright holder has the > legal right to take. well that reminds me. need to add myself to AUTHORS - as i have done work on entrance - a reasonable amount - enough to justify an AUTHORS entry... u can check cvs logs. thus as an AUTHOR i belive i have a little more weight to pull in this. i never saw you jump up and down when i worked on entrance beofre? do you see me making a fuss when YOU just commit things to spec and makefiles etc.? > Without respecting ownership, someone could quite easily release > Enlightenment 0.13.3 as 1.0 without your consent, and there would be > nothing you could do about it. i never said anything about not respecting ownership - ibukun doesnt lose ownership rigths over entrance, neither do i, nor tilamn, nor dj2 - if you check AUTHORS. but this person adds their name ther nd works on it. if they are the only one working on it - which they will be, they get to cal the shots as to when to make a release, what features to put in, how to code them, etc. what is wrong with that? > > i've had bad experiences. > > So have I. But those experiences don't change reality. they mean you dont treat something in a way that encourages it to be dead or dormant. > > do NOT rely on ibukun to "won" entrance and maintain it. dont rely > > on anyone - unless they are actively DOING stuff. > > Don't rely on anyone, ever. Even if they *are* doing stuff. They > could just as easily disappear in an instant by taking their own life > as they could fade away over time. > > > it's just a general thing. perfect example si the whole crap we have > > about e.org now - someone never "gave it up" and just disappeared > > and now we ALL suffer because orf views that someone has to > > officially give it up and appoint a new maintainer for things to > > work. > > Yes, stuff like this happens sometimes. And it sucks. But the > alternative (anarchy) would be far worse. The only reason things like > the Internet work is because we all agree on certain "laws:" TCP/IP, > BGP, IPSec, etc. and around these parts - those laws are cvs accss, and having it revoked if you do bad stuff (tm). > > hell no way. all the code - ALL OF IT, is fair game. > > For contribution, yes. For claiming ownership, no. by contibuting and adding an AUTHORS entry - you claim part ownership. basic fact. > > if someone wants to take over - then please do so (do so by actually > > DOING things, not just saying you will and then do nothing). > > Contribute, yes. Take over, no. so a person contributes 1000's of liens of code, works hard adds lot sof features, then cannot make a releas,e when no one else is working on that code? they have to just let it sit in cvs forever? no. they take over. they get to make releases, set versions, etc. > > by virtue of doing work you will become the new owner after a while. > > Not if the old owner objects. so old owner says "no - go away. don't touch it". ok. fine. now it gets no improvements as old owner is doing nothing. it gets no releases, no fixes. its DEAD. since any admin acts as benevolent dictator, its up to an ADMIN to call the final shot - should the fued just go on? shoudl someone be kicked out? (access removed). in this case the "blockage" will get removed. that blockage woudl be the old author doing nothng and ALSO not allowing new people to take over. at the worxst it ends up in cvs spats with one guy commiting and another removing the commits - continuously, until a call is made. and i will always make the call in favor of progress. the old author loses no credit or copyright - they simply lose access to cvs to modify the code in e's cvs. i think you are taking this the wrong way. as if the new owner completely remvoes all copyright access. it's like a distribution. peolpe "own" a package. when a packager "owns" the kernel - they dont own copyright and all credit. they own the job of producing packages and then do it. if they dont do it - then someone else takes over as owner. if multiple people share co-ownership then they are a team. (ie they ALL are active). people dormant for long enough lose "ownership" of that project. they dont lose copyright or anything else, but they dont push the agenda of its code. > > now i repeat. all the code in cvs is fair gamefor people to work on > > and improve. help is very much appreciated. > > Absolutely! Assistance is always appreciated. Cooperation is key. and if there is no one to co-operate with? sure. if ibukun was workign on entrance right now and others wanted to heklp- absolutely - work WITH him - co-ordinate efforts, but in the abscense of him ACTIVELY working - someone else is free to take over. > > if some code that is idle, gets a LOT of wokr done on it by a new > > person, and the old people are not working on it, then guess what - > > that new person becomes the maintainer/owner. > > Nope, sorry. You don't get to make the rules here. Running the E > project does not give you the authority to override international law > governing copyright. People who come along later can ONLY take > actions permitted by the license of the original software. Period. i wont repeat what i wrote above. the license does permit it. access to cvs does. see above. > > this is like any sport. you pick up the ball and run with it. you > > dont ask the guy who was holding it before if you have permission to > > pick it up and score a goal. you simply DO it. > > This is not a sport, but if you want to use that analogy (albeit > flawed), I'll try to go along. You are a player in the sport. Team > captain, perhaps. But that doesn't mean you're the referee. > International law governs this "sport," and you're just as bound by > the rules as everyone else. You don't ask permission to pick up the > ball and score because the rules explicitly give you permission to do > so in certain circumstances. But they do not give you permission to > claim you created the ball, nor do they give you permission to modify > the rules as you go. see above. > If the old maintainer were AWOL, there would certainly be an argument > for picking up where (s)he left off and moving forward with the > project. But Ibukun is still here and is still responsive. It's a > very, very different situation. really? news to me. last commit by xcomp: nov 11 - it was just reverting a small change by seb. no new work. nov 9 - xcomp commits patch (not new work by him) nov 8 - xcomp puts in another path - not him either. nov 7 - xcomp adds patch again oct 12 - tiny 1 line change to turn off tcp on x oct 10 - tiny 1 line change for sh exec oct 10 - minimal key changes in config thats my recorts back to sep 15 this year. so over 2.5 months. nothing but a few 3rd party fixes put in THROUGH him and a trivial change or 2. as i keep saying. xcomp has done great work on it - i dont deny the work he HAS done. but in the last year or a bit less - entrance has not gone very far. xcomp has been busy. i know. i respect all he has done and if he suddenly finds time - coming back to work on entrance a lot would be BRILLIANT. fact is - he himself said he cant find the time. and knowing his committments this likely wont chnage any time soon. anyone who wants to take over entrance - can. they wont be conflicting with anyone elses work. > Michael > > -- > Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > "I long for the warmth of days gone by, when you were mine, but now > those days are memories in time. Life's empty without you by my > side. My heart belongs to you no matter what I try." > -- Boyz II Men, "Four Seasons of Loneliness" > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
