Nick Hughart wrote: > Hisham Mardam Bey wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:46 PM, dan sinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On 3-Aug-08, at 1:27 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: >>> >>>> Hey, but that's ok for _YOU_, isn't it?! You already said it's fine >>>> and that's exactly the purpose to use BSD over LGPL. We're just being >>>> more friendly and instead of keeping it proprietary. >>>> >>> People contributing to the community? Sure that's ok for me. That's ok >>> for everyone I believe. I think that's kinda the point. People >>> contributing to the community works perfectly well under BSD and has >>> been working perfectly well. >>> >>> >> Dan, if you're referring to the EFL community, then I really think you >> should look at just how many active contributors we have. The number >> of people contributing to CVS is tiny, I wouldn't exactly use the word >> "perfect" to describe this situation, unless of course you think that >> 5 or less people contributing code and a couple hundred users that >> like to experiment with "alternate desktop environments" constitute >> what you'd call a "community working perfectly well". In 10 years >> time, we've made almost no noticible progress when it comes to growing >> the EFL developer or user base. We're still regarded as a niche and >> elitist group both in developer and user land. I believe its time to >> change the rules of the game and see what happens, specially given the >> fact that developers backed by companies are showing interest in >> contributing code under LGPL (and are starting to pave the future path >> of the EFL by doing so). >> > > And we are to assume it was the license all along? I can't say I agree > with that. In fact I think it has nothing to do with the license, but > possibly with the people involved. Raster is a developer, not a > marketing machine and as far as I've been part of this community, I > haven't seen anyone step forward to really act as the lead of a > marketing type department for E. Also, has usage of open source in the > corporate world been the same over the last 10 years? Did the > introduction of the LGPL all the sudden accelerate open source into > corporate use? I don't think it has as much to do with the license as > it does with the people who are in the community. If we've pushed away > people who could help in this dept then that was our fault. > Totally agree with Nick here. My thoughts exactly.
> I think the biggest fear the community has is that letting in excessive > amounts of devs will hurt the high performance and stability measures > that we keep around here (I could be wrong, but it feels this way). > This doesn't have to be the case and we could definitely open ourselves > up a bit more, but I think we have to be careful how we do so and I > think we have to refrain from jumping to conclusions on how to fix it, > i.e. licensing changes. > Agreed. > You said it yourself, we are considered niche and elitist and I can > certainly think of reasons why that is. People find our use of CVS > out-dated. They don't understand how CVS works because they've come > from projects that use Subversion or Git instead and are used to those. > I don't think these days it's really a matter of CVS just working, it > may just be one of the blockers that many potential devs don't feel like > bothering with. Another is just people in the community in general, we > may not have this elitist tag for nothing ;) > Well, as with the license issue, I cannot see our choice of SCMS being a real blocker. If someone is interesting in using/contributing to "E", then they will. SCMS doesn't really have anything todo with this IMO. I've heard you say it many times Nick...Subversion is just like CVS :) So if they can use Subversion, they can use CVS :P dh > I think the true failure we generally have is we will wait a long time > until raster has the opportunity to speak up about an issue. Can we not > put together a "board" of people to help make these type of decisions? > Have a loose vote for implementing something and go on our merry way. I > know we've talked about having meetings before and that's never really > happened, just too many people getting busy. Would be nice to have some > people with a clear vision for where we want this project to go and then > we aren't relying on a single person, who happens to end up busy quite > often, to make the final call. In general, is it not best to just get > code done and if it fails to perform to our standards, it gets > replaced/removed/modified? At least something got done and if at least > 50% of this code is useful are we not ahead of where we would have been > had no one taken the initiative? Now this could go south and we could > get a bunch of crappy code, but I don't think that will happen with the > community we have. If we instill the vision on every developer who > comes along instead of dumping their ideas in the trash we may just > build a bigger community that can help us achieve what we've longed to > achieve. > > I'm still new around here compared to other devs, but I think I'm > somewhere between the old and the new group which gives me an > interesting perspective :) Putting on my flame suit now, do your worst. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
