On 15/05/2012 17:44, Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
Blatantly the pyjs ownership change turned out to be an awkward
operation (as reactions on that ML show it), but a fork could also have
very harmfully "split" pyjs-interested people, so all in all I don't
think there was a perfect solution - dictator
> Blatantly the pyjs ownership change turned out to be an awkward
> operation (as reactions on that ML show it), but a fork could also have
> very harmfully "split" pyjs-interested people, so all in all I don't
> think there was a perfect solution - dictatorships never fall harmlessly.
You say "f
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 12:39 +0200, Pascal Chambon wrote:
> believe me all this fuss is pitiful compared to the real harm that was
> done numerous time to willing newcomers, on pyjs' old ML, when they
> weren't aware about the heavy dogmas lying around.
>
> A demo sample (I quote it each time the
Hi,
cool down, people, if anything gave FOSS a bad reputation, that's well
the old pyjamas website (all broken, because "wheel must be reinvented
here"), and most of all the "terror management" that occurred on its
mailing list.
Previously I had always considered open-source as a benevolent st
On 12/05/2012 08:10, anth...@xtfx.me wrote:
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:06:47 AM UTC-5, james hedley wrote:
My nose and my stomach give me a very strong feeling that something is
very, very wrong with the pyjamas project. I've personally never used
it, but given the adverse publicity I would
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:06:47 AM UTC-5, james hedley wrote:
> > i have not banned anything, or even alluded to it, whatsoever. i asked that
> > one specific mail not be commented upon
>
> OK, sorry if I misunderstood, but that's still suppression in my book.
James, how can you realistically
> i have not banned anything, or even alluded to it, whatsoever. i asked that
> one specific mail not be commented upon
OK, sorry if I misunderstood, but that's still suppression in my book.
> reading your accounts strewn about is interesting, what exactly are *your*
> motives?
My motives ar
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Adrian Hunt wrote:
> lol, Cheers Chris.
>
> Just so you know, I care about what and how I write... I almost always run
> my emails though a word-processor before sending. And, that has paid off for
> me: thanks to MS Word, MS Works and Open Office, I have better u
1000
> Subject: Re: Open Source: you're doing it wrong - the Pyjamas hijack
> From: ros...@gmail.com
> To: python-list@python.org
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adrian Hunt wrote:
> > All I did was to answer a mail sent to me by Ian Kelly (who I don't konw no
0:27:27 +1000
> Subject: Re: Open Source: you're doing it wrong - the Pyjamas hijack
> From: ros...@gmail.com
> To: python-list@python.org
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mark Lawrence
> wrote:
> > Google was a right PITA but eventually I found this
> > http://w
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adrian Hunt wrote:
> All I did was to answer a mail sent to me by Ian Kelly (who I don't konw nor
> have ever had any prior contact with) about releasing code under a
> license... And, what I said stands: once anyone releases code, they are
> bound by the license t
my message (and this one) may not be worded in the best way but
that is no reason to start on me!
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 22:56:43 -0300
From: ricar...@gmail.com
To: cybor...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Open Source: you're doing it wrong - the Pyjamas hijack
On 09/05/12
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Patents _are_ IP. You may mean "copyright", also IP. Copyright goes to
> the author, except that most companies require employees to assign it to
> the company, including the Berne Convention "moral rights" (such as
> attribution).
Oh. Th
On 10May2012 10:27, Chris Angelico wrote:
| On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mark Lawrence
wrote:
| > Google was a right PITA but eventually I found this
| >
http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/intellectual-property/guide/intellectual-property-and-employees/
| > It appears to contradict what you've
On 10/05/2012 01:27, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Google was a right PITA but eventually I found this
http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/intellectual-property/guide/intellectual-property-and-employees/
It appears to contradict what you've said above,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Google was a right PITA but eventually I found this
> http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/intellectual-property/guide/intellectual-property-and-employees/
> It appears to contradict what you've said above, or have I misread it? E.g
> "Under the (
amore...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: Open Source: you're doing it wrong - the Pyjamas hijack
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 23:44:01 +0100
On 09/05/2012 23:30, Adrian Hunt wrote:
In the UK at least, a developers IP cannot be hijacked by a company contract.
If you write some code while working for X, then X has
e: Open Source: you're doing it wrong - the Pyjamas hijack
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 23:44:01 +0100
>
> On 09/05/2012 23:30, Adrian Hunt wrote:
> >
> > In the UK at least, a developers IP cannot be hijacked by a company
> > contract. If you write some code while working fo
Hi Ian,
Well there you have me... You release code under a license, you bound by it
even if later you think better of it... Seller be ware!!
> From: ian.g.ke...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 16:59:00 -0600
> Subject: Re: Open Source: you're doing it wrong - the Pyjam
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Adrian Hunt wrote:
>
> Hi ya,
>
> Not to be confrontative but just because a project is open-source, it
> doesn't mean IP is open too!! The original idea is still property of the
> originator... It just has the global community adding their own IP and
> fixes. This
On 09/05/2012 23:30, Adrian Hunt wrote:
In the UK at least, a developers IP cannot be hijacked by a company contract.
If you write some code while working for X, then X has free usage of that IP
and may restrict you from using the same IP for company Y, but only for a
limited time (ie 5 years
12 15:00:11 -0400
> Subject: Re: Open Source: you're doing it wrong - the Pyjamas hijack
> To: lamial...@cleverpun.com
> CC: python-list@python.org
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Temia Eszteri wrote:
> > And you know what? Leighton was right to threaten legal act
On 09/05/2012 12:02, anth...@xtfx.me wrote:
Hello C Anthony,
I am an pyjs user and introduced the project as one of the fundamental
parts of a new application that is now core of a company of a reasonable
size (30+), customers include several companies in the top 10 of largest
IT infrastruct
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Temia Eszteri wrote:
> And you know what? Leighton was right to threaten legal action. What
> you did was not only in violation of his IP, but also multiple data
> theft laws.
As far as copyright goes, it was open source, so he's allowed to
continue making modifica
If the support you have from the other contributors is anywhere near
what you claim it is, I may as well be kissing Pyjamas goodbye.
Doubt it, though - this whole post reeks of vagueities and doublespeak
garbage. Too many undefined "whos". I'll wait until Leighton gets the
reins back.
And you kno
> the original goal was to purchase a domain and fork --
> i made this very clear in my notes -- `uxpy.net`. however, the most
> respectable member of the commit IMO convinced me otherwise.
(I'm a total outsider, never used pyjs.)
Anthony, you never explained what the reasoning behind the advice
It's also quite ironic that the initial complaining started from how
the domain name www.pyjs.org is not available only pyjs.org is. At the
same time the Rebel Chief's listed domain name on github, see
https://github.com/xtfxme, gives you a server not found:
http://the.xtfx.me/ :)
On 5/9/12, ant
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:10:13 AM UTC-5, james hedley wrote:
> Agreed with pretty much all of that. It's third-world politics, lurching from
> one dictator to another. Risinger seems to have banned all discussion of the
> subject from the list too, I'm not posting anymore because I don't want to
idea has been
stolen is not a simple thing to do... But surely in this case, as the project
is so visibly the intellectual property of Luke that Risinger and his sheep are
standing on the edge of a very large and loose cliff!
> To: python-list@python.org
> From: tjre...@udel.edu
> Subj
On 5/8/2012 5:47 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From what others have posted, it has a new code repository (that being
the ostensible reason for the fork), project site, and mailing list --
the latter two incompetently. Apparently, the only thing he has kept are
the domain and project names (the latter
On 08/05/2012 22:47, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:42 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
You still have it backwards. Risinger forked the project with a new code
host and mailing list, but stole the name and and some data in the
process
and made t
On 5/8/2012 12:42 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
You still have it backwards. Risinger forked the project with a new code
host and mailing list, but stole the name and and some data in the process
and made the false claim that his fork was the ori
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 9:47 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Devin Jeanpierre
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no "both projects". there was Luke's project, and then
>>> Risinger stole it and it's Risinger's project. There is on
On 5/8/2012 9:47 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Devin Jeanpierre
wrote:
There is no "both projects". there was Luke's project, and then
Risinger stole it and it's Risinger's project. There is only that one
thing -- Luke has no """fork""" of his own codebase.
Presu
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Devin Jeanpierre
wrote:
> There is no "both projects". there was Luke's project, and then
> Risinger stole it and it's Risinger's project. There is only that one
> thing -- Luke has no """fork""" of his own codebase.
Presumably Luke could fork his own project, tho
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I hope that pyjamas can be restored at some point to a single live
> project. Whether that's headed by Luke Leighton or C Anthony Risinger
> (neither of whom I know at all and thus I can't speak to either's
> merits) or someone else, I don't
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 15:20 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I hope that pyjamas can be restored at some point to a single live
> project. Whether that's headed by Luke Leighton or C Anthony Risinger
> (neither of whom I know at all and thus I can't speak to either's
> merits) or someone else, I don'
Agreed with pretty much all of that. It's third-world politics, lurching from
one dictator to another. Risinger seems to have banned all discussion of the
subject from the list too, I'm not posting anymore because I don't want to give
him an excuse to wield his newly found banhammer.
But yeah,
Even worse, here's what Risinger had to say when Leighton asked them
to stop sending him email:
"probably best not to feed the troll, Pascal -- especially one
overwrought and lost in high dudgeon -- they tend to brickwall common
reason and simple social advices."
"Luke has made his decision -- an
On May 8, 1:54 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Seriously, this was a remarkably ham-fisted and foolish way to "resolve"
> a dispute over the direction of an open source project. That's the sort
> of thing that gives open source a bad reputation.
The arrogance and sense of entitlement was so thick yo
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> A.k.a. "we had to destroy the project in order to save it".
>
> http://technogems.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/pyjamas-hijacked.html
Great summary, very handily peppered with links to appropriate posts.
> Seriously, this was a remarkably ham-fi
41 matches
Mail list logo
