Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 12:23:51PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 1/14/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > (...) > > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David > > > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's > > > under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's > > > a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, but i won't > > > cite you as a reference anymore. > > > > > > -- > > > Gustavo Franco > > Hi Gustavo, > > Is it within the scope of Canonical employees to contribute code to > > Debian that is under the his copyright and not Canonical's? And > > especially since it is in the exact same area that he was employed by > > Canonical to do? Would this apply to Progeny and Debian, Progeny and > > Canonical, Linspire and ... > > Hi Kevin, > > I think that Matt Zimmerman (mdz) knows the answer. I'm not sure I understand the question, but if Kevin is asking whether code contributions to Debian by Canonical employees are copyrighted by Canonical? If so, the answer is "sometimes". -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On 1/14/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > (...) > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David > > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's > > under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's > > a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, but i won't > > cite you as a reference anymore. > > > > -- > > Gustavo Franco > Hi Gustavo, > Is it within the scope of Canonical employees to contribute code to > Debian that is under the his copyright and not Canonical's? And > especially since it is in the exact same area that he was employed by > Canonical to do? Would this apply to Progeny and Debian, Progeny and > Canonical, Linspire and ... Hi Kevin, I think that Matt Zimmerman (mdz) knows the answer. -- Gustavo Franco
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute > > > back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone > > > employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition do > > > we say that the US government gives back to Debian? Do we say that your > > > employer gives back to Debian? > > > > If it's an authorised use of company time, sure. Whether or not it is in > > this case, I don't know. > > > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's > under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's > a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, but i won't > cite you as a reference anymore. > > -- > Gustavo Franco Hi Gustavo, Is it within the scope of Canonical employees to contribute code to Debian that is under the his copyright and not Canonical's? And especially since it is in the exact same area that he was employed by Canonical to do? Would this apply to Progeny and Debian, Progeny and Canonical, Linspire and ... Cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On 1/13/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute > > > > back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone > > > > employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition > > > > do > > > > we say that the US government gives back to Debian? Do we say that your > > > > employer gives back to Debian? > > > > > > If it's an authorised use of company time, sure. Whether or not it is in > > > this case, I don't know. > > > > > > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David > > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's > > under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's > > a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, > > You've never done anything at work that wasn't officially sanctioned by your > boss? No, because i'm the technology coordinator in a NGO and i'm free to contribute to the Debian project during my workhours since we develop a CDD for telecentres. I see your point, but you're mixing different stuff. AFAIK the 'contribute back to Debian' is endorsed by Canonical, so it's officially sanctioned there using your own words. -- Gustavo Franco
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute > > > back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone > > > employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition do > > > we say that the US government gives back to Debian? Do we say that your > > > employer gives back to Debian? > > > > If it's an authorised use of company time, sure. Whether or not it is in > > this case, I don't know. > > > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's > under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's > a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, You've never done anything at work that wasn't officially sanctioned by your boss? - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute > > back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone > > employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition do > > we say that the US government gives back to Debian? Do we say that your > > employer gives back to Debian? > > If it's an authorised use of company time, sure. Whether or not it is in > this case, I don't know. > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, but i won't cite you as a reference anymore. -- Gustavo Franco
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute > back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone > employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition do > we say that the US government gives back to Debian? Do we say that your > employer gives back to Debian? If it's an authorised use of company time, sure. Whether or not it is in this case, I don't know. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:45:48AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > We can't say that Canonical/Ubuntu isn't contributing back. They're, > as pointed out by some of us. e.g.: David said that Daniel helped him, > but if he did that in his workhours it's under Canonical bless. Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition do we say that the US government gives back to Debian? Do we say that your employer gives back to Debian? - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On 1/13/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:08:52PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > We can't decide how they need to "give us something MORE back" and > > it's their problem? > > Whoever said they need to do that? They just need to stop bragging > about shit they don't do. There's at least two ways to accomplish this. > > If they fail to contribute in a meaningful way, it just means more > work for them (in trying to maintain a diverging fork). Hence, that's > their problem. It's not really a problem for us. > We can't say that Canonical/Ubuntu isn't contributing back. They're, as pointed out by some of us. e.g.: David said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's under Canonical bless. It seems that the main problem is how they're handling the list of patches. If they want to spread the word that they're contributing, it seems that many of us want to be informed about the patches as we inform upstreams and not as it's today. I can't affirm if they're saying more than they're doing, but we are for sure. I was the only trying to prepare a list of things that we can ask them to change, and mdz (Ubuntu/Debian) tried to collect feedback too. We want cooperation, it seems that they want too but Debian by nature is a complicated project and Ubuntu will never satisfy all our needs, even for just handling and reporting back some patches. With that in mind, it would be good to hear about some internal discussion in Ubuntu camp too, maybe in the next online meeting or in London. It will proof that they want to be something different than a simple fork, as described by mako[0]. [0] = http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html (long) -- Gustavo Franco
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:08:52PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > We can't decide how they need to "give us something MORE back" and > it's their problem? Whoever said they need to do that? They just need to stop bragging about shit they don't do. There's at least two ways to accomplish this. If they fail to contribute in a meaningful way, it just means more work for them (in trying to maintain a diverging fork). Hence, that's their problem. It's not really a problem for us. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On 1/12/06, Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Qui, 2006-01-12 às 18:08 -0200, Gustavo Franco escreveu: > > - Scott's url with patches isn't part of the "give something back" > > approach that we want. We need to be well informed about patches, but > > we don't know exactly how; > > Don't we? > > Debian is Ubuntu's upstream, right? In a way, yes. > When you modify something in the upstream code, you normally send it to > upstream, right? The normal "upstream" can't be applied here. There are some scenarios where Ubuntu can patch Debian packages and it isn't a simple "debian (upstream) - ubuntu (dd)" relationship, see: non-native: debian/ patches; debian/patches or whatever - normally related to upstream (do they need to report it to us or the real upstream? both?); native: I think everything not in debian/ could be reported back, but each debian/ changeset should be verified first. > Do you send it as a link to a file with a patch only? Or do you send a > comment explaining the problem, the proposed solution and why that > decision was made? That's why i mentioned revision control system (on Ubuntu side not us) in the other thread, but Manoj missed the point replying and i don't think it's going to happen anyway. There are cases when debian/changelog is enough (native as described above) but others aren't. > That's it, just it, nothing more... That's what distinguishes > cooperating from forking... Yes, but you're yet to fill the "how" gap since i believe you agreed that a new bug in our BTS related with every Ubuntu changeset wouldn't be a good idea, right? Don't came with "they need to review and judge", it's up to us decide if we will include patches or not. They won't do it every time, but it's clear that some of Canonical employees are doing it as Matt cited. If it's not happening to your packages, i recommend you ask who modified them to file bug reports. It will be your policy, you're free to do that. -- Gustavo Franco
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
Em Qui, 2006-01-12 às 18:08 -0200, Gustavo Franco escreveu: > - Scott's url with patches isn't part of the "give something back" > approach that we want. We need to be well informed about patches, but > we don't know exactly how; Don't we? Debian is Ubuntu's upstream, right? When you modify something in the upstream code, you normally send it to upstream, right? Do you send it as a link to a file with a patch only? Or do you send a comment explaining the problem, the proposed solution and why that decision was made? That's it, just it, nothing more... That's what distinguishes cooperating from forking... daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:31:40PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so > > > > > much. > > > > > > > > I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; > > > > I've > > > > yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London > > > > later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly > > > > discuss your concerns face-to-face. > > > > > > The intent here being "stop people from scrutinising Ubuntu in public; > > > get it off the lists so that it's less visible". Not likely. > > > > Do you want visibility or solve current problems ? > > If I were interested in solving Ubuntu's problems then I would be > working on Ubuntu. As people keep pointing out, Ubuntu's failure to > cooperate effectively is *not* our problem - the only 'problem' that > *we* have is that Ubuntu-worshippers keep showing up and > proselytizing. An effective solution to this problem is to raise > awareness to the point where people stop believing and start > thinking. It appears to be working. > We can't decide how they need to "give us something MORE back" and it's their problem? An effective solution is discuss between us and keep our needs clear, since there are some Canonical employees that are DDs too, they're in a position that they can participate in these discussions (they're doing it right now). You started (in a way) two threads about it and there's other about launchpad, in my view we've the following status (with comments below): - No, Debian isn't going to embrace launchpad and ask for "rw" status (Debian is listed there as read-only).[0] - Yes, Ubuntu is contributing back but some DDs judge that it isn't Canonical but some Canonical employees that are dedicated to Debian too, so they help because they want;[1] - Scott's url with patches isn't part of the "give something back" approach that we want. We need to be well informed about patches, but we don't know exactly how; I removed more non-Canonical related initiatives like Ubuntu MOTUs page about contributing to Debian. [0] = I agree, DDs and contributors are free to use any tools they want, so we're not going to force any DD or contributor go through launchpad. I think it's consensus and valid for other things, like alioth and related stuff; [1] = If they're doing it in their workhours, it isn't only because they want. -- Gustavo Franco
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:31:40PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so > > > > much. > > > > > > I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; > > > I've > > > yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London > > > later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly > > > discuss your concerns face-to-face. > > > > The intent here being "stop people from scrutinising Ubuntu in public; > > get it off the lists so that it's less visible". Not likely. > > Do you want visibility or solve current problems ? If I were interested in solving Ubuntu's problems then I would be working on Ubuntu. As people keep pointing out, Ubuntu's failure to cooperate effectively is *not* our problem - the only 'problem' that *we* have is that Ubuntu-worshippers keep showing up and proselytizing. An effective solution to this problem is to raise awareness to the point where people stop believing and start thinking. It appears to be working. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so > > > much. > > > > I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've > > yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London > > later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly > > discuss your concerns face-to-face. > > The intent here being "stop people from scrutinising Ubuntu in public; > get it off the lists so that it's less visible". Not likely. Do you want visibility or solve current problems ? I'm glad that Matt is open for suggestions, and even a talk in person with you. You missed a chance to provide (yet another) sane feedback from Debian perspective to him, and give us something back. Thanks, Gustavo Franco
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so > > much. > > I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've > yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London > later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly > discuss your concerns face-to-face. The intent here being "stop people from scrutinising Ubuntu in public; get it off the lists so that it's less visible". Not likely. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
* Christian Perrier | No chance that people from Canonical show up over there? I can even | host (Perrier's bed and breakfast, including cheese)...:) I doubt it; There's a Ubuntu distro sprint in London that week so we'll all be very, very busy with discussions and bug fixing on our own. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've > yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London > later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly > discuss your concerns face-to-face. Which is probably what is missing a lot in such controversial issues: email has always proven to be the worst communication media ever for controversial discussions. ...which mostly explains why I refrained my self to participate in these threads while my feeling is quite widely shared with Frans Pop's feeling. /me...who expects tons of Ubuntu/Debian discussions at Solutions Linux in Paris (Jan 31-Feb 2) with both fellow French developers, users...and Ubuntu users as well. No chance that people from Canonical show up over there? I can even host (Perrier's bed and breakfast, including cheese)...:) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
For what it's worth, I largely agree with Andrew. Please, show some fire and some honesty or STFU. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
Frans Pop wrote: > My observations: > - almost all development effort that may help narrow the gap is done on > the Ubuntu side, not on the Debian side; I'm sorry, but I've spent quite a lot of time digging usefull things out of the dross in Ubuntu patchsets (to the point of exhaustion and extreme frustration), doing enormous redesigns based on needs synthesised from observations of how Ubuntu and other CDDs changed things, etc; and I've observed other DDs doing the same. So I don't really understand where you're coming from with that statement. > - I expect things to get better over time, not worse. Still in wait and see mode here. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so > much. Hello, Andrew. I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly discuss your concerns face-to-face. Cheers, -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Thursday 12 January 2006 00:09, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so > much. What pisses me off is ppl keeping this thread alive without adding new arguments with as their main goal to widen the gap that is definitely there, but is also not as wide as they want others to believe. This discussion has been repeated at least three times here and in this thread I have so far seen no significant new arguments. My observations: - almost all development effort that may help narrow the gap is done on the Ubuntu side, not on the Debian side; - the paid Ubuntu developers all work very hard (sometimes somewhat resulting in less attention to their Debian responsibilities than we'd like, but hey, real live (i.e. making money to live on) comes first; - there are plenty of Debian developers who take little or no trouble to see how Ubuntu might help them; there are also plenty Ubuntu developers who maybe could make more of an effort to give back; at least Ubuntu has a policy of giving back; never seen policy not (fully) implemented in practice? - I expect things to get better over time, not worse. Note: I am on the Debian side but am happy with any of my work also being used in Ubuntu as I see plenty coming back personally. And even if not: Ubuntu is doing great things for the promotion of free software. Cheers, FJP pgpXmOgvzGXoK.pgp Description: PGP signature
