Perhaps at this point a pointer to Simon Peyton Jones' recent post on respectful discourse is in order.
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html I understand that people care deeply about these issues, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address them in a calm and respectful way. Discussing these issues is hard enough without mixing harsh language into the debate. y On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Daniel Bünzli <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 1 October 2016 at 14:11, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:05 AM Daniel Bünzli < > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > While not granting the same rights to the contributor if you don't > have a liberal (in the sense non GPL) license... What you say is a gross > misrepresentation of the actual implications of the terms. > > > > Yes, the rights are not equal, but often, the contributions are not > equal either. I have written 100% of the code of opam-builder, so why shall > I give you the same rights on my code, just because you might eventually > contribute 10 lines ? Are you the one who will maintain the full code over > time, fix bugs in the lines you added, make them evolve, and so on ? You > want the same rights, but without the same duties. > > > Frankly I don't give a shit about what you do with your code or how you > license it. Just notice that the system you setup will precisely *not* > entice people to make large contributions or take over these duties. > > > We changed the license in your sense instead of introducing a CLA > because you convinced everybody it was needed to increase the number of > contributions. > > 1) The OPAM license wasn't changed in my sense, the bug of the license was > fixed. > 2) I never said it would increase the number of contributions. I said that > CLAs were barriers to contribution [1]. > > > Looking at the git logs in github.com/ocaml/opam ( > http://github.com/ocaml/opam), the number of contributions have actually > decreased since the license went more liberal... > > The license didn't go more liberal, the license had a bug which was fixed > so that it would correspond to the original intent. > > And about that decrease in contributions, my sincere apologies to the > community, that is certainly because we didn't introduce a CLA, I'll take > the blame for this. > > Daniel > > [1] http://lists.ocaml.org/pipermail/opam-devel/2016-January/001291.html > _______________________________________________ > Platform mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform >
_______________________________________________ Platform mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
