From reading this whole thread, I see this problem as one of purpose, not license.
We all need to shut the hell up and ask this one question: What is the purpose of -extras? If its purpose is to be the premiere place for plugins, themes and classes from the Habari community, for the Habari community, then we need to only have one license restriction: A recognized FOSS license. If this is to be a place as Owen put it: 1) Serve as a place to develop plugins and themes with public participation to sound out whether either a contribution or a developer is worthy of promotion to core or PMC, respectively. 2) Allow developers interested in contributing to Habari to house their code and issue tracking at no cost to them. Then we should be requiring all code submitted to it to be licensed under the ASL. For the record I am in favor of option 1. We need a centralized location for plugins and themes, and providing that for the community is a good thing, and serves our participation model. And for the record, I hate the GLP with a passion usually only reserved for sex crime offenders. But it is a FOSS license and as such we should tolerate its existence within our community. So, since it seems we have a difference of opinion on what -extras is, I call for a vote on the purpose of -extras. After we determine what it should be, we can clarify any license statements. So, I vote +1 for -extras being a repo that houses any plugin/class/ theme that is built for Habari regardless of license. In our intro to - extras we explain the benefits of licensing your work under the ASL (possible inclusion in core, etc) but in no way mandate it. I call for 48 hours of voting on this subject from now, December 3rd, 10:01 CDT. Out. Chris On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:47 PM, Arthus Erea wrote: > I do not know enough of the intricacies of licensing to understand > this issue and certainly want to avoid the disputes that arise from > this, but I would just like to remind *everyone* that we care a > common vision here. > > Seriously, this is a dispute over the license of our -extras > repository. Please try to keep things in context, and remember our > common vision and goal. > > On Dec 3, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Chris Meller wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Michael Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >> >> 2008/12/4 Chris Meller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> > There *is* no lack of clarity. I suspect anyone who thinks there >> is of being >> > totally illiterate. >> >> Come on, ad hominem attacks don't move the debate forward at all. >> >> It wasn't meant as an attack. I'm seriously failing to see how, >> given all that I've said and all that I've linked and referenced, >> there could still be any confusion on the issue. The GPLv3 is >> compatible with ASL 2 according to *everyone*. Please, tell me the >> piece I'm missing here causing a problem... > > It was an attack and you know it. Calling someone illiterate is a > clear cut ad hominem attack. There clearly are sources which say > that GPLv3 is not compatible with ASL 2, which both Owen and Michael > provided. > > Regretfully, > Arthus > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
