On 2012-08-20 08:15:55 +, Andi Zeidler said:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:08 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
I think Jens is right to point out the legal concerns, which many of us
don't fully understand. I think it might have been more effective had
it pointed out why people should care, rather than jus
On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:08 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I think Jens is right to point out the legal concerns, which many of us don't
> fully understand. I think it might have been more effective had it pointed
> out why people should care, rather than just saying "this is the rule".
+1
it seems to
On 20 August 2012 01:44, Ross Patterson wrote:
>
> > For me the discussion sounds a little like a general denial against
> > github using the legal story as rationale.
>
> +10. I'm so glad others are saying the things I think need saying.
>
> I *am* a signed ZF contributor and from experience, t
Robert Niederreiter writes:
> On 19.08.2012 10:30, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>
And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown
>>> sources (e.g. pull requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue
>>> again.
>>>
>>> And tha
Hi Jens,
On 2012-08-19 06:51:47 +, Jens Vagelpohl said:
On Aug 19, 2012, at 0:01 , Alex Clark wrote:
Hi Jens,
On 2012-08-18 07:49:59 +, Jens Vagelpohl said:
Hi Alex,
Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces
from Zope Foundation-hosted repositories and
Hi Tres,
On 2012-08-19 15:52:52 +, Tres Seaver said:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 09:58 PM, Alex Clark wrote:
Hi,
On 2012-08-19 01:24:31 +, Lennart Regebro said:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver
wrote:
Because the ability to check into
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> The point is that the identity of the committer on Github is not tied to
> the ZF's machinery for contributions, which means that it cannot be used
> to preserve the "chain of custody" under the contributor agreement.
What stops us from fixing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 09:58 PM, Alex Clark wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2012-08-19 01:24:31 +, Lennart Regebro said:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver
>> wrote:
>>> Because the ability to check into svn.zope.org is based on a
>>> "chain of custo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 09:24 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver
> wrote:
>> Because the ability to check into svn.zope.org is based on a "chain
>> of custody" managed by the ZF (web account, verified e-mail address,
>> a
Hi
On 2012-08-19 11:05:39 +, Lennart Regebro said:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Speaking for myself as ZF representative, it is my duty to make sure
that chain of custody for the code is upheld and safeguarded.
Convenience, which I feel is driving the move towa
On 2012-8-19 12:59, Robert Niederreiter wrote:
On 19.08.2012 12:16, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Done by a contributor with some clear gesture from the non-contributor
that code ownership is going into the hands of that contributor.
How does this 'clear gesture' from the non-contributor look like righ
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Speaking for myself as ZF representative, it is my duty to make sure that
> chain of custody for the code is upheld and safeguarded. Convenience, which I
> feel is driving the move towards GitHub, is nice to have. But I would not do
> my
On 19.08.2012 12:16, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:55 , Robert Niederreiter wrote:
https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.txt
btw - pyramid seem to have a very pragmatic approach for the signing process ;)
An approach I doubt will hold up in a court of la
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:55 , Robert Niederreiter wrote:
> https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.txt
>
> btw - pyramid seem to have a very pragmatic approach for the signing process
> ;)
An approach I doubt will hold up in a court of law. We require and have wet
signatures
On 19.08.2012 10:30, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown sources (e.g. pull
requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue again.
And that returns me to my first question: Is it really legall
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown sources (e.g.
>> pull requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue again.
>
> And that returns me to my first question: Is it really legally
> different for a contributor to ac
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 21:46 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
>> Yes, but my question is why this changes with github.
>
> GitHub is a third party infrastructure run by other people. I cannot
> ascertain how well it enforces our requirement that
On 19 August 2012 08:00, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2012, at 3:58 , Alex Clark wrote:
>
> > IANAL but from my perspective the legitimate issue here is that Domen
> Kožar has not signed the Zope Contributor's Agreement, but Jim has added
> him to the Buildout organization on GitHub and
On Aug 19, 2012, at 3:58 , Alex Clark wrote:
> IANAL but from my perspective the legitimate issue here is that Domen Kožar
> has not signed the Zope Contributor's Agreement, but Jim has added him to the
> Buildout organization on GitHub and he has been committing fixes. If I were
> the ZF, I
On Aug 19, 2012, at 0:01 , Alex Clark wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On 2012-08-18 07:49:59 +, Jens Vagelpohl said:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>> Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces from
>> Zope Foundation-hosted repositories and move them somewhere else.
>> Thanks!
>
> I thin
On Aug 18, 2012, at 21:46 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Yes, but my question is why this changes with github.
GitHub is a third party infrastructure run by other people. I cannot ascertain
how well it enforces our requirement that all checkins must be from signed
contributors only. Furthermore,
Hi,
On 2012-08-19 01:24:31 +, Lennart Regebro said:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
Because the ability to check into svn.zope.org is based on a "chain of
custody" managed by the ZF (web account, verified e-mail address, and SSH
key). J. Random Hacker's account on Gi
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Because the ability to check into svn.zope.org is based on a "chain of
> custody" managed by the ZF (web account, verified e-mail address, and SSH
> key). J. Random Hacker's account on Github has no such chain.
Sure, but Random J Hacker shou
Hi
On 2012-08-18 22:01:51 +, Alex Clark said:
Hi Jens,
On 2012-08-18 07:49:59 +, Jens Vagelpohl said:
Hi Alex,
Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces
from Zope Foundation-hosted repositories and move them somewhere else.
Thanks!
I think you are con
Hi Jens,
On 2012-08-18 07:49:59 +, Jens Vagelpohl said:
Hi Alex,
Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces
from Zope Foundation-hosted repositories and move them somewhere else.
Thanks!
I think you are confused. I would suggest you ask Jim Fulton about it,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 03:18 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> But removing stuff from svn.zope.org requires approval from you as
> the original owner *and* the ZF as legal co-owner of anything stored
> on svn.zope.org.
Actually, it requires the permission of the ZF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 03:46 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Jens Vagelpohl
> wrote:
>>
>> The contributor agreement requires you as the contributor to be able
>> to enter into the contract with the Zope Foundation transferring
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 15:46 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
>>> official Zope Foundation software anymore if
On Aug 18, 2012, at 15:46 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
>> official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
>> Reason: the ZF can no longe
On Aug 18, 2012, at 14:31 , Jean-Paul Smets wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I approve your position Jens.
>
> Moving to git can make sense. Moving to github as primary platform does not
> make sense.
Hi Jean-Paul,
Technical pros and cons are valid arguments, correct, but that wasn't my point
here. I'm t
On Aug 18, 2012, at 12:46 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 2012-8-18 10:39, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> Hi Hanno,
>>
>> Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
>> official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
>
> Doesn't the name zc.bui
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
> official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
> Reason: the ZF can no longer ascertain that only official ZF contributor
> agreement
Am 18.08.2012, 15:35 Uhr, schrieb Chris Withers :
I'm not going to dignify this with a fuller response other than to say
that Jean-Paul Smets' entire email is nothing but bullshit written to
try and promote an inferior competing product.
The issues of hosting and vcs were aired a few months
I'm not going to dignify this with a fuller response other than to say
that Jean-Paul Smets' entire email is nothing but bullshit written to
try and promote an inferior competing product ;-)
Chris
On 18/08/2012 13:31, Jean-Paul Smets wrote:
Hi,
I approve your position Jens.
Moving to git ca
Hi Jens,
On 18/08/2012 09:39, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
Reason: the ZF can no longer ascertain that only official ZF contributor
agreement signers ha
Hi,
I approve your position Jens.
Moving to git can make sense. Moving to github as primary platform does
not make sense.
Github is a proprietary platform. There is really no justification in
using a proprietary platform for open source projects, especially
considering that many open source
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Doesn't the name zc.buildout imply that it is a Zope Corp project instead of
> a Zope Foundation one? The author has also never been listed as the
> foundation but Jim personally, which seems to imply zc.buildout never was
> Zope Foundatio
On 2012-8-18 10:39, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Hi Hanno,
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
Doesn't the name zc.buildout imply that it is a Zope Corp project
instead of a Zope Foundati
Hi Hanno,
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
Reason: the ZF can no longer ascertain that only official ZF contributor
agreement signers have modified code in the package, which is a
Please note that development of buildout 2 happens on github since April this
year. The buildout developers decided to do the move after Jim suggested it.
Legally you could see this move as a fork, but it was done by Jim and others.
Alex just wanted to clarify the situation and also move the dev
Hi Alex,
Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces from Zope
Foundation-hosted repositories and move them somewhere else.
Thanks!
jens
On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:09 , J. Alexander Clark wrote:
> Log message for revision 127519:
> Moved to github
>
>
> Changed:
> A
41 matches
Mail list logo
