On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Talintyre, John wrote:
> I hope and expect your access to be given back shortly.
This I do not believe - you have the ability to do this, as does Nicholas,
Andrea, and Richard. You have stated that Peter is out of order to
continue to lock me out in private email, as have other Core Team members.
You've stated that my position was extreme, and asked me not to remove
content. I have stated to all of you that I am not going to do so out of
respect for non-Peter core team members and the rest of the community. (as
well as the total futility aspects)
Do none of you have the guts to stand up and act on what you believe is
> However, you took an extreme route to get across your message, there
> are consequences for many.
I was left with no other route. Peter had breached my trust, moved
functionality away from the way it actually works, breaks content and is
useful, and was ignoring my concerns, favouring to tweak topic
categorisations, and correct misspellings.
He and TWiki.org continue to breach the GPL in various ways. (An
unalterable copyright notice which precludes people adding their names
into the copyright mix is in breach of the GPL - which _requires_ the
copyright statement to be correct:
""" 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice """
TWiki's copyright statement 4 years ago was correct. Today it is not. So
TWiki's distribution which precludes modifying the license files actually
precludes compliance with section 1 of the GPL for derivative works. This
does not mean the license of TWiki must change, just the wording
*slightly*, or perhaps serparated out into AUTHORS and COPYING or similar
like many other projects.
This also means derivative works are not possible to redistribute
(compliance with section 1 is not possible due to the added preamble).
This means TWiki is being distributed in a GPL incompatible manner - which
*is* the right of the copyright holder, but it does mean that TWiki users
may exercise their full rights with regard to the GPL. Furthermore all
copyright is being claimed by Peter in the license.txt and for that he has
no legal basis for doing so. (I certainly have not assigned copyrights for
> For Peter it means a lot of extra work, with less time to spend on
Peter has ignored TWiki *development* for many months now - the large
majority of patches on TWiki.org have not been reviewed by anyone, and
there is some extremely good stuff there. The process has been broken for
about 2 years now, as Beijing release clearly shows.
> Lots of work is going on to address your concerns, but just because you
> state a particular route is legally correct doesn't make it so.
No it doesn't. However neither does legal advice - only courts do - ask
IBM and SCO - both are paying through the nose for their legal advice and
one set of lawyers is completely wrong (hopefully SCO's).
I'm not going there - EVER - I'd rather rewrite TWiki from scratch than go
there. I had raised the issues because I thought the solution would be
based on amicable pragmatism rather than bringing in lawyers and locking
people out and holding them to ransom.
Indeed I thought BSD'ing my content to yourselves was an attempt at being
pragmatic in a way that benefits yourselves.
> If any contributor can withdraw their contributions then TWiki will be too
TWiki.org claims that content is owned by the contributors, not TWiki.org.
TWiki.org has had this problem since day 1 - since before you joined.
Some Wiki's explicitly solve this problem by posting a notice stating that
content added is FDL'd. It struck me that if I did this, then even if I
wanted to withdraw my contributions you would have every legal right to
> We need to deal with the rights of the community as well as the
Without individuals you have no community. Do you not realise that?
Do you not realise that alienating developers is the one thing you cannot
afford to do - (*if* you wish TWiki to grow it's developer community of
course) ? MikeMannix has done it before, and it's happening again.
I have tried to provide you guys with a route out despite my utter
*disgust* at Peter's recent action - however much unintended. I have done
it to grant you guys extra freedoms beyond those you can expect from me.
It is to try and make your lives easier, not harder.
I gain absolutely no benefit from doing this - none at all (I doubt you
will ever store a tree compatible with mine for example) - aside from not
getting hacked off when it's redistributed in a fashion I don't like.
I chose the FDL because it's GPL compatible. I chose to GPL my patches on
TWiki.org because you (collective) believe I have no other option. (This
isn't true but that is how you (collective) feel). I chose to BSD my
patches to yourselves, since it grants you more rights with respect to my
code, poses less requirements on yourselves than the GPL, and I
specifically chose a BSD license from the GPL compatible list.
I chose to explicitly state that I would not be removing content due to
the futility of trying to do so, and that if I was allowed to contribute
that I would.
And in return you make it sound like I should be expecting legal action
for trying to provide you with a useful solution.
> Cheers, John
> John Talintyre