On 28/11/05, Michael Jennings wrote: > 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. > > > 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. > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > Like I said, someone else can create a fork, but they cannot usurp > control of entrance itself. > > > 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 > 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. > > 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. > > 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've had bad experiences. > > So have I. But those experiences don't change reality. > > > 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. > > > hell no way. all the code - ALL OF IT, is fair game. > > For contribution, yes. For claiming ownership, no. > > > 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. > > > by virtue of doing work you will become the new owner after a while. > > Not if the old owner objects. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > 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. > > 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"
Hi, Do you know Joe's Own Editor? Sometime Joe just disappeared, after a while some ppl continued developing it. When Joe came back, he couldn't even read the code, but he read what the others commited, and then was active again. I think this is the same situation, and we know xcomp is gone for a long time, and I'm sure he would give to anyone the right to maintain and own it, as I read him saying he CAN'T be active. And he's not here and responsive. In my opinion. Laszlo Treszkai ------------------------------------------------------- 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_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
