On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:27:22 -0500 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> 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 other peopl have every right to work on the code. the license does not prohibit it. nothing legally or technically enforces this. > > 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. i'm not saying it is correct of entrance as an assessment. he has not said "no release" - but he has pretty much not said anything. nor done anything of major note in recent times. > > > 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. given the licenses - we do have the legal right to modify the code - in cvs, if you have access. if you add coee - that gives you copyright over that code and thus partial copyright over the whole project. it does not REMOVE someone elses, work and copyright, but it does ADD yours. > 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. yes it does. as there can be more than 1 you become ONE of the copyright holders. > > 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. actually its a matter for those who use and write the licenses. the license doesnt even mention the name not being allowed to be used, it does allow free copying, duplication, modification etc. etc. etc. that means multiple copeis with different modifications (forks) with the SAME name are not prohibited by the license at all and actually allowed. thats how the license stands. if xcomp didnt want the code to be fair game - he should never have made it open source under an OSS license. period. or chosen a much more restrictive license that doesnt allow forks of the same name or any copying and modification of the code. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) ------------------------------------------------------- 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
