Alexandria-Devel

I guess everybody read the "announcement" of the various changes here at sourceforge (http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6267&group_id=1 and http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6266&group_id=1).

To me, that means to say goodbye to the alexandria project. The successor (SourceForge Open Edition) will be some stripped-down joke, not even used by sf.net itself. I spare me that experience ("no sorry, we cannot accept that patch, it is too good!").

I suggest we move on to Frank's project (sf.net/projects/sf-genericinst), who in my opinion would ideally join forces with lo-lan-doo (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/debian-sf/). I could also update my .spec file (sf.net/projects/q-patches) so that we can build a major new sf release as a .tar.gz, .deb and .rpm asap. Maybe a move over to savannah (including Frank) wouldn't be that bad at all - who knows how much longer the sf.net servers will be operated.

Does anybody agree/disagree?

Well, I was lucky enough to grab one of the latest publicly available snapshots of the now defunct alexandria project and currently have about 65% of the functionality working at my company. I have already made several changes (e.g. actually making themes work, supporting a "list all projects" feature, adding more navigation links to the pages, etc.).

One thing that I think would be very helpful would be to update the Layout.class to support the concept of a "page specific menu". The idea being that as part of the $HTML-header(...) call you can also pass a list of page specific options. This would assume the role that is currently done for example on the project summary pages. But it would provide a standard mechanism that could be customized on a layout by layout basis.

Other interesting enhancements would be linking tracker items to task manager items (e.g. so that you could easily create a task from one or more open tracker items, and have facilities to auto close the items when the task is completed.)

Oh well, a lot of this is off topic and rambling. I'm all for a savanah version (although the current version there is 2.0 based isn't it?)

Interesting this, va is stating that "your software is your software" but what about the parts of sf that were submitted by users that are not employees of va linux? And what about the portions that are written by their employees but with the understanding that this was open source software? And what about the part of the gpl that states that derivitive software of software that was first released as a gpl must also be released as gpl. Once you pick the gpl as a license you must remain with it.
I know va needs the money but maybe they should have thought of that a couple of years ago. You can not make money giving your only product away.

I am not sure if they can leagaly close source the software now due to the gpl and the fact that their code now contains work done by other people and so they are infringing on the rights of those people.

Mike.

I too am very concerned about the code I've submitted.

This one http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=403818&group_id=1&atid=300001 has been merged into cvs as well as thos one
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=403848&group_id=1&atid=300001

As for >> And what about the part of the gpl that states that derivitive software of software that was first released as a gpl must also be released as gpl
the original copywrite holder still owns the code and can release it under a different license, but this still does NOT cover the use of my & others code.

Would someone employeed by SF please post here and detail what will be done about contributed code?

Thanks, Tom

Maybe they should call it Source Forge Closed Edition. This is a desperate attempt by VA Linux to protect the bad decision of betting the company on open source based services that they now need to create. The really bad news for VA Linux is that this decision goes against its core values which is never a good sign.

I get the feeling that SF (and VA Linux)is like the Titanic before it hits the iceberg. So in the true spirit of the open revolution, we all should look for a place to host our code taht doesn't have conflicting interests.

> I get the feeling that SF (and VA Linux)is like
> the Titanic before it hits the iceberg. So in
> the true spirit of the open revolution, we all
> should look for a place to host our code that
> doesn't have conflicting interests.

Well, there are several ongoing projects.
Savannah is operated by the GNU, so I doubt there
is any risk there. There is Tux Family. There
are also several automated or semi-automated ways
to install your own Sourceforge site (sfportable,
sf-genericinst, debian-sf, maybe more).

Take your pick. There's also the CoopX project,
that aims at providing an exchange format between
all these platforms, so that you can change your
mind afterwards (it's just a project right now).
I don't think there's much risk in staying at
sourceforge.net though. For now.

I like your reference to the titanic; very apt in this case.
I think they have hit the 'berg but having lost communication to the engine room think it's just a little bump and the phones out.
http://www.valinux.com/about/news/releases/082301.html is their year end press release. I do not see how you can loose $525,268,000 in a year with an acumulated deficet of $634,887,000 and hope to survive.
I know of small countries that couldn't survive this.
Mike.

I respect VA decision for their business and I hope the model of open core + proprietary extension can work. I thank them for what they have done so far for the community. So I wish them good luck with the new model. Apparently other open source companies are trying this too.

Not being sharp in legalese, my practical understanding is that VA keep the copyright of its code, and any contributor keeps the copyright of its own additions. Nobody else than the copyright holder can use a code in another way than agreed by the license. The copyright holder is not bound by a license. So if you had contributed, you may negociate your rights with VA on the additions you made.

I do not thing the news are bad. Given that they are a number of people interested in using and developing this code, it is possible to make it live.
Please, the questions below are not in my mind any criticism of the decisions at VA.

The idea raise issues that need some more explanation, namely:
- the definition of the borderline between the two (what's in/out?)
- an legal explanation of the copyright use by VA.
- will the closed software branch from here evolve in a incompatible way?
- Is there an open interface to SourceForge Open Edition, that the closed software is bound to use, but that other developers are allowed and encouraged to use (that means a serious documentation that was never provided in the source forge)
- Are other allowed to develop and sell proprietary extension as well? As I understand the GPL, this is not true: one may develop extensions for internal use, but not for sale.

Obviously VA might think that some people abused the GPL to take valuable work without giving them something. We now that it was not easy to contribute back quickly for several reasons already discussed here. Now, they expect to reverse the flow, and have other people give valuable work that they will benefit by selling in the closed product.

If you are shocked by this, you will have to decide to quit. I personnaly think it is fair, and would like that a new team is built that would be fully independant of VA but collaborating with them, keeping a balance of public and private interests.

If working for a company, not for your own pleasure, this might be difficult to handle the inequality of status between the copyright holder and licensee if both develop and contribute.

Please, VA, answer these questions.

FYI
savannah version is 2.0
debian-sf version is 2.5 soon or later 2.6
Are your new features based on 2.6 last-snapshot?

My changes are based on the latest snapshot of SF 2.6 that I performed, which was done on July 12, 2001. I guess the biggest problem is that both the debian and sf-genericinst packages use a version of SF, but we need a home location for the version that those installations are using.

sf-genericinst did the last checkout on July 14, I believe. I think it would be ideal if sf-genericinst would become the new .tar.gz project and the next release of debian-sf would be based upon sf-genericinst (aka sf 2.6). I'm guessing that the announced alexandria-sf 2.6.2 will already be a stripped down version.

Also, I think sf-genericinst should move over to savannah as the home location, possibly joining the debian-sf project (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/debian-sf/).

But that's just my 2c, of course...

As a lot of us, I was planning to install, try, play and inprove SF. I had a SF2.5, but it's gone.. Bothe the SF project of VaLinux/SF.net and my copy ... (sad).

I'm quite sure, we have both the code and the knowladge to reassemle the "latest" SF (2.6-) version. Let's reunie and join the code/knowladge we have. As long SF.net is here, let's use it. (and keep lot of off-line copies)

Just post which version, which release, which improvements YOU have, and can/will post. Later, we can vote over the best place to host it, the name of the project and more. But PLEASE help to summaries the parts we have. And join a "baSF" (born again SF) porject --Albert