I agree... completely agree... - iPhone Application Developer > Nice <3
On 8/13/07, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Scott wrote: > > Hello project developers, > > > > The thread is the start of a new Adoption Policy proposal on MozDev. > > > > The current Adoption Policy is more of a informal one and I am proposing > > a formal one that will eliminate the following problems with the current > > policy... the main issue at hand is that currently if a project owner > > has stopped doing any work on there project they have indefinite rights > > to keep ownership, even if others have made contributions in any fashion > > to keep the addon working, EG; attachments made to existing un-answered > bugs > > This is the way Open Source works, and should work IMHO i.e. the > original project owner is and stays the owner, whatever you did to help > your community. > > The thing is that you can't claim copyrights of any given project that > stalled for whatever reason, but you have the right to fork a given > project; but you need to make that clear to a) the original project > owner (who in almost all cases on mozdev.org is the sole developer) and > b) to your users. > > Anyone willing to fork a project should be aware of the possibility that > real life events like health, work or even a new relation ship might > take the project owner off-line from their public appearance on > mozdev.org, and sometimes for months... like what happened with my dad > year after year ever since 2001 with the MultiZilla project. > > Let's take the MultiZilla project as an example where I work as "Project > Team Lead" (see sig) but my father stays the "Project Owner". One > doesn't have to become the "project owner" you know, yet I can do > whatever necessary for the project... because people trust me... after > they have learned to know me over time; and I can assure you that this > is very important. > > But what if it wasn't me, but someone we don't know? Someone with cruel > intentions to hurt the project, project owner et all? Who is to blame, > legally if you want, if something bad happens to/with a given project? > > Giving people CVS access and letting them work as a developer/team > member might be fine, a good deal for all parties involved, but with > caution because of the for mentioned possibility. > > Someone should probably also check and review, super review if you like, > all of your work before it ends up in any public release (We was lucky > with Philip Chee with this). > > However, becoming the new/sole project owner should be considered > something completely different; and the main reason for this is that you > might be credited for something you shouldn't get the credits for (like > for example the idiot who bought a car in my fathers name, because the > idiot learned that he would be gone for months). > > Being the project owner won't bring you anything... but responsibilities > which you still have to proof over time. However, it is fine when the > original/sole project owner sends in his waiver of approval... because > he alone is the legal owner of it. > > But let me ask you this: "Why do you need to become the project owner in > the first place, if you can work on any given Open Source project > *without* the legal responsibilities that come along with it?" > > Note: Helping the original project owner might be more rewarding > afterwards. > > -- > Michael Vincent van Rantwijk > - MultiZilla Project Team Lead > - XUL Boot Camp Staff member > - iPhone Application Developer > > _______________________________________________ > Project_owners mailing list > [email protected] > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners > -- ______ Ezequiel. Http://www.ironicnet.com
_______________________________________________ Project_owners mailing list [email protected] http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
