On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:08 , Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Jens is right to point out the legal concerns, which many of us don't
fully understand. I think it might have been more effective had it pointed
out why people should care, rather than just saying this is the
On Aug 19, 2012, at 0:01 , Alex Clark acl...@aclark.net wrote:
Hi Jens,
On 2012-08-18 07:49:59 +, Jens Vagelpohl said:
Hi Alex,
Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces from
Zope Foundation-hosted repositories and move them somewhere else.
Thanks!
I
On Aug 19, 2012, at 3:58 , Alex Clark acl...@aclark.net wrote:
IANAL but from my perspective the legitimate issue here is that Domen Kožar
has not signed the Zope Contributor's Agreement, but Jim has added him to the
Buildout organization on GitHub and he has been committing fixes. If I
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org wrote:
On Aug 18, 2012, at 21:46 , Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but my question is why this changes with github.
GitHub is a third party infrastructure run by other people. I cannot
ascertain how well it
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown sources (e.g.
pull requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue again.
And that returns me to my first question: Is it really legally
different for a
On 19.08.2012 10:30, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown sources (e.g. pull
requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue again.
And that returns me to my first question:
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:55 , Robert Niederreiter r...@squarewave.at wrote:
https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.txt
btw - pyramid seem to have a very pragmatic approach for the signing process
;)
An approach I doubt will hold up in a court of law. We require and have
On 19.08.2012 12:16, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:55 , Robert Niederreiter r...@squarewave.at wrote:
https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.txt
btw - pyramid seem to have a very pragmatic approach for the signing process ;)
An approach I doubt will hold
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org wrote:
Speaking for myself as ZF representative, it is my duty to make sure that
chain of custody for the code is upheld and safeguarded. Convenience, which I
feel is driving the move towards GitHub, is nice to have. But I
On 2012-8-19 12:59, Robert Niederreiter wrote:
On 19.08.2012 12:16, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Done by a contributor with some clear gesture from the non-contributor
that code ownership is going into the hands of that contributor.
How does this 'clear gesture' from the non-contributor look like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 09:24 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com
wrote:
Because the ability to check into svn.zope.org is based on a chain
of custody managed by the ZF (web account, verified e-mail
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
The point is that the identity of the committer on Github is not tied to
the ZF's machinery for contributions, which means that it cannot be used
to preserve the chain of custody under the contributor agreement.
What
Hi Tres,
On 2012-08-19 15:52:52 +, Tres Seaver said:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 09:58 PM, Alex Clark wrote:
Hi,
On 2012-08-19 01:24:31 +, Lennart Regebro said:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver
tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Because the
Robert Niederreiter r...@squarewave.at writes:
On 19.08.2012 10:30, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown
sources (e.g. pull requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue
On 20 August 2012 01:44, Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net wrote:
For me the discussion sounds a little like a general denial against
github using the legal story as rationale.
+10. I'm so glad others are saying the things I think need saying.
I *am* a signed ZF contributor and from
Hi Alex,
Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces from Zope
Foundation-hosted repositories and move them somewhere else.
Thanks!
jens
On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:09 , J. Alexander Clark cvs-ad...@zope.org wrote:
Log message for revision 127519:
Moved to github
Please note that development of buildout 2 happens on github since April this
year. The buildout developers decided to do the move after Jim suggested it.
Legally you could see this move as a fork, but it was done by Jim and others.
Alex just wanted to clarify the situation and also move the
Hi Hanno,
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
Reason: the ZF can no longer ascertain that only official ZF contributor
agreement signers have modified code in the package, which is a
On 2012-8-18 10:39, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Hi Hanno,
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
Doesn't the name zc.buildout imply that it is a Zope Corp project
instead of a Zope
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
Doesn't the name zc.buildout imply that it is a Zope Corp project instead of
a Zope Foundation one? The author has also never been listed as the
foundation but Jim personally, which seems to imply zc.buildout never was
Hi,
I approve your position Jens.
Moving to git can make sense. Moving to github as primary platform does
not make sense.
Github is a proprietary platform. There is really no justification in
using a proprietary platform for open source projects, especially
considering that many open
Hi Jens,
On 18/08/2012 09:39, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
Reason: the ZF can no longer ascertain that only official ZF contributor
agreement signers
I'm not going to dignify this with a fuller response other than to say
that Jean-Paul Smets' entire email is nothing but bullshit written to
try and promote an inferior competing product ;-)
Chris
On 18/08/2012 13:31, Jean-Paul Smets wrote:
Hi,
I approve your position Jens.
Moving to git
Am 18.08.2012, 15:35 Uhr, schrieb Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk:
I'm not going to dignify this with a fuller response other than to say
that Jean-Paul Smets' entire email is nothing but bullshit written to
try and promote an inferior competing product.
The issues of hosting and vcs
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org wrote:
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
Reason: the ZF can no longer ascertain that only official ZF
On Aug 18, 2012, at 12:46 , Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
On 2012-8-18 10:39, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Hi Hanno,
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
Doesn't the name
On Aug 18, 2012, at 14:31 , Jean-Paul Smets j...@nexedi.com wrote:
Hi,
I approve your position Jens.
Moving to git can make sense. Moving to github as primary platform does not
make sense.
Hi Jean-Paul,
Technical pros and cons are valid arguments, correct, but that wasn't my point
On Aug 18, 2012, at 15:46 , Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org wrote:
Legally this must be a fork then and I'm not sure it can be released as
official Zope Foundation software anymore if you make releases from GitHub.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 03:46 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org
wrote:
The contributor agreement requires you as the contributor to be able
to enter into the contract with the Zope Foundation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2012 03:18 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
But removing stuff from svn.zope.org requires approval from you as
the original owner *and* the ZF as legal co-owner of anything stored
on svn.zope.org.
Actually, it requires the permission of the ZF.
Hi Jens,
On 2012-08-18 07:49:59 +, Jens Vagelpohl said:
Hi Alex,
Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces
from Zope Foundation-hosted repositories and move them somewhere else.
Thanks!
I think you are confused. I would suggest you ask Jim Fulton about
Hi
On 2012-08-18 22:01:51 +, Alex Clark said:
Hi Jens,
On 2012-08-18 07:49:59 +, Jens Vagelpohl said:
Hi Alex,
Please revert this checkin. You can't just take core software pieces
from Zope Foundation-hosted repositories and move them somewhere else.
Thanks!
I think you are
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Because the ability to check into svn.zope.org is based on a chain of
custody managed by the ZF (web account, verified e-mail address, and SSH
key). J. Random Hacker's account on Github has no such chain.
Sure, but
Hi,
On 2012-08-19 01:24:31 +, Lennart Regebro said:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Because the ability to check into svn.zope.org is based on a chain of
custody managed by the ZF (web account, verified e-mail address, and SSH
key). J. Random
34 matches
Mail list logo
