Hi, I never managed to achieve the status "core developer" but I contributed some patches and I am a really long time GnuCash user.
I started using GnuCash in 1999. Yes, it was called Xaccountant back then and the extension of my GnuCash data file is still .xac :-). I have been reading gnucash-devel since I have been using GnuCash. I was never aware that GnuCash is part of the GNU project but I don't care very much either. However, my name appears in the copyright statements of some GnuCash source files and I never transfered my copyright to the FSF. I don't know if any of the current or former developers did. Herbert. Chris Shoemaker wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 09:52:59AM -0700, Derek Neighbors wrote: >>On Aug 10, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Chris Shoemaker wrote: >> >>>On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:07:14AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >>>>Christian Stimming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> >>>Maybe you were just joking around, (I do see a smiley), but if you're >>>seriously asserting that GnuCash was ever "released under the auspices >>>of the GNU Project"[1], which appears to be definitive of GNU >>>packages, then I would expect GnuCash's documentation to have declared >>>itself to be GNU software. I've been unable to find any evidence that >>>this was ever true. Do you have any? If not, I believe you are >>>mistaken. >>At the time that GNUCash appeared to be friendly with the GNU Project >>there wasn't much documentation about GNUCash in general. I don't >>think it or propagating relationships in what existed was a primary >>focus. In a nutshell, just because documentation doesn't state >>anything doesn't prove a ton (in either direction). > > I didn't really mean user-level documentation. For as far back as I > can research, the GnuCash source code and associated files > (e.g. README) have always been rather verbose on the topics of > licensing, authorship and copyrights. In that context, the absence of > any "This is GNU software" statement certainly casts doubt in my mind, > _especially_ since that would perhaps be the only objective mark of > the fact, given that copyright was not being assigned to FSF. > >>>As for RMS's implication that "the GNU Project" wrote GnuCash [3], >>>GnuCash's authors are quite well noted in GnuCash's source and AUTHORS >>>file. I don't know of the official membership of the GNU Project - >>>perhaps it's a circular definition, but of those contributors, you, >>>Thomas, are the only one I know of that's apparently associated with >>>the GNU Project. >>I think only the developers can say. Here is where I think some of >>the roots (or my understanding of them) are confused. It is my >>understanding that Linas took an X-accountant program which was no >>longer maintained and gutted it to not be dependent on Motif. My >>interactions with Linas certainly made me believe he was very >>connected to the Free Software Foundation AND the GNU Project because >>I was introduced to him via RMS as needing to collaborate for the >>betterment of the GNU Project. >> >>It is also my understanding that the GNU Project very much helped >>Linux Global Partners put money behind the company Linas ran >>(GNUMatic) which employed many of the people in the AUTHORS file. >>During my interaction with GNUMatic it was very much communicated >>that GNUCash was part of the GNU Project. > > Could you clarify that last part, please? Communicated by whom, to > whom, in what form and how explicitly? Any references would be > especially helpful. > >>Once GNUMatic shut its doors most of those developers stepped away >>(including Linas) and Derek Atkins took primary leadership of the >>project. Since that happened there seems to no longer be any >>connection to the GNU Project. >> >>>I'm just trying to objectively examine the few things that would >>>suggest ambiguity on the subject. On the whole, I'm inclined to trust >>>the more numerous and less ambiguous data that clearly indicate the >>>GnuCash has never been a GNU package, e.g. a public statement by a >>>core GnuCash developer in 2001, "While GnuCash is licenced under GPL >>>software, we are not technically a GNU project." [4] >>I don't think a comment in a Slashdot posting is "hard evidence". >>Note that Robert Merkel, if memory serves correct, was an employee at >>GNUMatic. Many of the GNUMatic employees started Linux Developers >>Group (LDG) after GNUMatic closed. There was a vested interest to >>try to muddy copyright waters of code for LDG's gain. Note: I am not >>saying that to be negative or indicate any sort of wrong doing. Not >>even saying the source is wrong. Just saying that the source loses >>credibility because of potential conflict of interest. > > There may or may not have been a conflict of interest. However, his > statement certainly doesn't "muddy copyright waters". "The copyright > is actually owned by the many individuals and the companies who have > contributed to the project." This is a clarification, and true. > Whether or not GnuCash was a GNU package seems to be fairly objective, > so on that topic, I feel comfortable saying he either told the truth > or not, perhaps unintentionally, or perhaps deceptively. Based on > what I've seen, I think what he wrote was true. > >>The FSF asks projects to ASSIGN copyright, but doesn't MANDATE it (or >>at least they used to not do so). I think well run projects do, both >>for legal issues and issues like this. >> >>>All that aside, I don't really have a strong opinion either way, if >>>other devs wanted to make GnuCash a GNU package. They would have to >>>announce it, though. As far as I can tell, they don't really care >>>much. However, it's strange that RMS claims that GnuCash is a GNU >>>package, and definitely impolite to imply that GnuCash was written by >>>"the GNU Project." [3] >>I definitely agree here. I think the current developers (those >>putting in their time) need to assess whether they want to be a part >>of the GNU Project. If so, they should do the things that are >>expected of GNU projects. If not, they should let RMS and the FSF >>that they are not interested in being part of the FSF GNU Project. >> >>In summary, I am not so sure it matters if GNUCash was or wasn't >>part of the GNU Project. I think what is important is deciding if >>they CURRENTLY want to be part of the GNU Project. > > I think the current devs are satisfied with maintaining the status > quo, so in that sense, it _does_ matter if GnuCash was part of the GNU > Project. If it was, and in the absence of any decision to withdraw > from the GNU Project, we should immediately and visibly announce that > GnuCash is indeed a GNU package, despite all the things that would > seem to indicate otherwise. If it was not, but RMS wants to say that > it is, what does that hurt us? It seems to be spreading a rather > harmless misconception that has little effect on GnuCash and may even > benefit RMS. It's like Novell calling GnuCash a SUSE package. Again, > I think the current devs just don't care much, (unless we're all > mistaken and GnuCash really is a GNU Package, in which case serious > clarification is appropriate.) > > -chris > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > -- Herbert Thoma Group Manager Video Multimedia Realtime Systems Department Fraunhofer IIS Am Wolfsmantel 33, 91058 Erlangen, Germany Phone: +49-9131-776-323 Fax: +49-9131-776-399 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.iis.fhg.de/ _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel