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 state
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
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 fork
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 -
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 are
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
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
(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 20:04, Adrian Hunt wrote
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adrian Hunt cybor...@hotmail.com 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
: 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 breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Google was a right PITA but eventually I found this
http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/intellectual
: 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 cybor...@hotmail.com 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
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Adrian Hunt cybor...@hotmail.com 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,
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
Subject: Re: Open Source: you're doing
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
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,
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
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 know
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Temia Eszteri lamial...@cleverpun.com 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
On 09/05/2012 12:02, anth...@xtfx.me wrote:
cut all
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
-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 lamial...@cleverpun.com wrote:
And you know what? Leighton was right to threaten legal action. What
you did
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
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Adrian Hunt cybor...@hotmail.com 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
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 Pyjamas hijack
To: cybor
court upheld the decision of the UK
courts. Still there are was little to no enforcement of what they decided!!!
Any how IP IS the IP of the developer... Proving it and enforcing it is another
matter!!
To: python-list@python.org
From: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: Open Source: you're
...@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 free usage
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk 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
On 10/05/2012 01:27, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mark Lawrencebreamore...@yahoo.co.uk 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
On 10May2012 10:27, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
| On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
| Google was a right PITA but eventually I found this
|
http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/intellectual-property/guide/intellectual-property-and-employees/
|
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au 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).
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,
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't
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Devin Jeanpierre
jeanpierr...@gmail.com 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
On 5/8/2012 9:47 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Devin Jeanpierre
jeanpierr...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 5/8/2012 9:47 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Devin Jeanpierre
jeanpierr...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no both projects. there was Luke's project, and then
Risinger stole it and it's Risinger's
On 5/8/2012 12:42 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu 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
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 Reedytjre...@udel.edu 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
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
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info 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.
On May 8, 1:54 pm, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info 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
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 -- and
41 matches
Mail list logo
