On Wednesday, 30 November 2005, at 09:54:27 (+0900), Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > My point is that it's his responsibility to give up the reigns or > > simply take a less active development role (and more management). > > It's his choice. > > he HAS taken a less active role. thats my whole point! by sheer > virtue of actions. And *my* point is that he has chosen option #2, not option #1, of the two options in my statement above. > > Not at all. Anyone with CVS access can contribute. I have no > > problem with that. All I'm saying is that the person in charge > > remains the person in charge until one of the following happens: > > (1) (S)he steps aside willingly; (2) (S)he is inexplicibly out of > > touch via e-mail and IRC for a significant period of time. > > OR in the event they just go minimally active (do no significant > work on a project that needs work - see previous mails of mine), and > thus become a block to that project moving forward. No. It's THEIR project. They have every right to be a roadblock to it if they so choose. That's where the Fork and Rewrite options come into play. > and if you now have 1 person doing 90% of the work... do they not > get to call when to release? or do you leave it to someone inactive? I don't leave it to anyone. It's not my call. It's up to the owner of the code in question. In this case, xcomp. And if anyone else actually *were* doing 90% of the work, I bet he'd take that into account when making his decision. > so leadwer says no release, and then does nothing. doesnt say "no > release because i am working on x, y and z and it will be in soon" > or "no release because person b and c over here are working on x, y, > and z" or "no release because we want to syncronise with release of > project h, i and j" - just say "no release"... that to me - says > "dead project". 100% dead. I'm not going to argue whether or not that assessment is accurate. I will, however, point out that no one has said that about entrance, so the point seems pretty moot to me. > > A project being committed to E's CVS tree does not give us > > (project admins) the right to overrule the original author. > > technically, it does. in practice - we dont. No, it doesn't. Just because we have the privileges to do something doesn't mean we have the legal right (or the ethical right) to do it. We can modify it, delete it, fork it, or even sell it. But that doesn't make us the copyright owner. No moreso than kernel.org owner H. Peter Anvin could usurp Linus as owner and dictator of Linux. > i really suggest you re-read the licence files. nowhere does it > prohibit a fork/derivative of using the same name. That's a discussion better left to lawyers. 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 wish you'd look at me that way, your beautiful eyes looking deep into mine, telling me more than any words could say. But you don't even know I'm alive. Baby, to you all I am is the invisible man." -- 98 Degrees ------------------------------------------------------- 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
