nmock-two-dev — Discussion of development of NMock 2

Re: [NMock2-Dev] Anybody got NMock2 building on Mono?

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

That sounds awesome.

On 2/17/06, Mike Roberts <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On 16/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
> > I've written a Makefile to build and test under Mono.  Would it be
> > possible to get CCNet to run this build as well as the MS.NET Nant
> > build?
>
> We've not got mono installed on CCNetLive, I think it would be a bit
> confusing if we did so.
>
> However, I got CCNet itself completely running on Mono last weekend
> and I'm hoping to get a 2nd CCNetLive machine runing linux & mono, so
> once that's done we can build NMock on that.
>
> That sound reasonable?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi=
les
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] Anybody got NMock2 building on Mono?

[Mike R. <mik...@gm...>]

On 16/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
> I've written a Makefile to build and test under Mono.  Would it be
> possible to get CCNet to run this build as well as the MS.NET Nant
> build?

We've not got mono installed on CCNetLive, I think it would be a bit
confusing if we did so.

However, I got CCNet itself completely running on Mono last weekend
and I'm hoping to get a 2nd CCNetLive machine runing linux & mono, so
once that's done we can build NMock on that.

That sound reasonable?

Cheers,

Mike

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Gary F. <sf_...@ma...>]

Joe Poon wrote:

> Unfortunately, that would be IE not enjoying the ajax/prototype.  Oops.
> But it's all good, Mike's go forward website using plain html plays 
> nicely with both IE & Firefox.

Actually, it was Firefox.  Norton overrides the window.open method.  
Rather than doing something inside the browser, Norton filters the HTML, 
inserting its own methods.  It's a very primitive approach, but it has 
more powerful customization than Firefox or even the Adblock extension 
(meaning I could fix it at my end if necessary).

But no matter.  The other site design works just fine.

Gary

>
> - joe
>
> On 2/16/06, *Gary Feldman* <sf_...@ma... 
> <mailto:sf_...@ma...>> wrote:
>
>     Mike Mason wrote:
>
>     > Joe Poon and I ... <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/>
>     >
>     > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the
>     logo
>     > but I quite like the rest of the style:
>     >
>     > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/
>     <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/>
>     > < http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/>
>
>     For what it's worth, the Norton pop-up blocker causes this to come
>     up empty.
>
>     Gary
>
>
>
>     -------------------------------------------------------
>     This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through
>     log files
>     for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
>     searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD
>     SPLUNK!
>     http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
>     <http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NMock-two-dev mailing list
>     NMo...@li...
>     <mailto:NMo...@li...>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>     <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev>
>
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Joe P. <joe...@gm...>]

Unfortunately, that would be IE not enjoying the ajax/prototype.  Oops.
But it's all good, Mike's go forward website using plain html plays nicely
with both IE & Firefox.

- joe

On 2/16/06, Gary Feldman <sf_...@ma...> wrote:
>
> Mike Mason wrote:
>
> > Joe Poon and I ... <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/>
> >
> > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the logo
> > but I quite like the rest of the style:
> >
> > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/
> > <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/>
>
> For what it's worth, the Norton pop-up blocker causes this to come up
> empty.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log
> files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat=
=3D121642
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

The license is the same as jMock.

--Nat.

On 2/16/06, Gary Feldman <sf_...@ma...> wrote:
> sco...@rk... wrote:
>
> > I don't really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code
> > right? It is only used internally. I thought that GPL allowed for
> > that. A GPL license would only become "infectious" if you start
> > shipping your tests.
> >
> If people are concerned enough to discuss various licensing options,
> it's helpful to first identify exactly what you are trying to prevent.
> The main question is whether you're trying to require acknowledgment,
> require all derived distributions to provide source code for free (the
> GPL approach), prohibit redistributing under more restrictive licenses,
> prohibit any profiting, etc. The other issue, which may be unimportant,
> is what effect will the licensing have on people choosing to write
> extensions? Would there be fewer contributors because of the license, or
> will RhinoMock get new features faster because they're BSD and not L/GPL?
>
> Just food for thought; it doesn't much matter to me personally.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi=
les
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat=
=3D121642
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Gary F. <sf_...@ma...>]

Mike Mason wrote:

> Joe Poon and I ... <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/>
>
> Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the logo 
> but I quite like the rest of the style:
>
> http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ 
> <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/>

For what it's worth, the Norton pop-up blocker causes this to come up empty.

Gary

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Gary F. <sf_...@ma...>]

sco...@rk... wrote:

> I don’t really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code 
> right? It is only used internally. I thought that GPL allowed for 
> that. A GPL license would only become “infectious” if you start 
> shipping your tests.
>
If people are concerned enough to discuss various licensing options, 
it's helpful to first identify exactly what you are trying to prevent. 
The main question is whether you're trying to require acknowledgment, 
require all derived distributions to provide source code for free (the 
GPL approach), prohibit redistributing under more restrictive licenses, 
prohibit any profiting, etc. The other issue, which may be unimportant, 
is what effect will the licensing have on people choosing to write 
extensions? Would there be fewer contributors because of the license, or 
will RhinoMock get new features faster because they're BSD and not L/GPL?

Just food for thought; it doesn't much matter to me personally.

Gary

Re: [NMock2-Dev] Mono makefile question

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

The mono compiler is specified by the MCS variable, so you can build with:
    % make MCS=3Dgmcs

Is that enough?

--Nat.

On 2/16/06, sco...@rk... <sco...@rk...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nat,
>
>
>
> Can you set up the makefile so that you can direct it to use gmcs instead=
 of
> mcs, either with an environment variable or a parameter? gmcs has support
> for generics, but mcs does not. I guess this option should also set the
> NET_2_0 (that might not be exactly right) compile time parameter so that =
the
> generics support is enabled in the nmock dll as well.
>
>
>
> I ask this because I have had trouble in the past referencing assemblies
> built with mcs when compiling with gmcs. I guess it is possible that this=
 is
> no longer a problem, but I am unable to check right now.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Scott

[NMock2-Dev] Mono makefile question

[<sco...@rk...>]

Nat,

=20

Can you set up the makefile so that you can direct it to use gmcs
instead of mcs, either with an environment variable or a parameter? gmcs
has support for generics, but mcs does not. I guess this option should
also set the NET_2_0 (that might not be exactly right) compile time
parameter so that the generics support is enabled in the nmock dll as
well.

=20

I ask this because I have had trouble in the past referencing assemblies
built with mcs when compiling with gmcs. I guess it is possible that
this is no longer a problem, but I am unable to check right now.

=20

Thanks,

-Scott

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[<thi...@gm...>]

> Just to echo what Mike says, unfortuantely facts don't often have a
> heavier weight than perception. I would definitely pick a BSD- or
> Apache- like license and avoid the 3 letters GP & L (even if
> pre-fixed)  it makes life for us consultant types really hard.

Same here: GPL would probably be blocker because of perception and "risk
management" (doo). My customers tend to avoid it.

Re: [NMock2-Dev] Anybody got NMock2 building on Mono?

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

I've written a Makefile to build and test under Mono.  Would it be
possible to get CCNet to run this build as well as the MS.NET Nant
build?

--Nat.

On 2/13/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
> Thanks all.  I've got some minor changes to check in, but I don't want
> to do so without compiling and testing them on my own box.
>
> --Nat
>
> On 2/13/06, sco...@rk... <sco...@rk...> wrote:
> > I thought of another option on my way into work this morning. You could
> > convert the project to MSBuild, and then try out XBuild[1], the Mono
> > MSBuild implementation.
> >
> > [1]: http://svn.myrealbox.com/source/trunk/mcs/tools/xbuild/
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmock-two-dev=
-
> > > ad...@li...] On Behalf Of M. Scott Ford
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:29 AM
> > > To: nmo...@li...
> > > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Anybody got NMock2 building on Mono?
> > >
> > > I got it to compile. There is a sln to makefile program that is part
> > of
> > > the Mono installation. It converts to MonoDevelop/SharpDevelop, too. =
I
> > > don't remember the exact application name any more. But I have
> > attached
> > > the make file that it generated. It should get you started.
> > >
> > > Mike Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > >On 10/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>The NAnt config that's been checked in doesn't work with the Mono
> > > >>1.1.8.3 install on on my machine, complaining that it can't find a
> > > >>package config for mono.  Anybody tried to compile on Linux before?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Hi Nat,
> > > >
> > > >I don't beleive the <solution> target works on Mono. The NAnt team
> > > >need to get it able to target the mono compiler rather than csc and =
I
> > > >don't think they've done that yet.
> > > >
> > > >For CCNet (which we almost have fully working on Mono) I just let
> > > >CCNetLive produce the compiled zips, then I run that under Linux. It=
s
> > > >a pain, but less of a pain that (a) fixing up <solution> or (b)
> > > >maintaining two different compilation definitions in the NAnt /
> > > >solution / .csproj files.
> > > >
> > > >Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-------------------------------------------------------
> > > >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through
> > log
> > > files
> > > >for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> > > >searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD
> > SPLUNK!
> > > >http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=1216=
42
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > > >NMo...@li...
> > > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log =
files
> > for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> > searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
> > _______________________________________________
> > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > NMo...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> >
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

I don't think the GPL is actually that hard to sell into big
organisations.  FIT is GPL'd and has had no no problem being accepted.
 Granted, there are some organisations (or managers) who won't pay a
lawyer to help them interpret the license but they are also the kind
who won't pay for good developers:  NMock is going to help solve their
real problems!

However, I think having the same license as jMock will remove any
misunderstandings.  I'll upload a LICENSE.txt file into the nmock2/
directory today.

--Nat.

On 2/15/06, Mike Roberts <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On 15/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> > > I don't really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code ri=
ght?
> > It is only used internally. I thought that GPL allowed for that. A GPL
> > license would only become "infectious" if you start shipping your tests=
.
> > I agree, but sadly it's not my opinion that counts. If it's GPL people =
will
> > have more difficulty using it in commercial environments. That's bad, a=
nd
> > regardless of the correctness or otherwise of that position, it's the
> > position many commercial companies have taken.
> >
>
> Just to echo what Mike says, unfortuantely facts don't often have a
> heavier weight than perception. I would definitely pick a BSD- or
> Apache- like license and avoid the 3 letters GP & L (even if
> pre-fixed)  it makes life for us consultant types really hard.
>
> Of course, if I wasn't a consultant I would be pushing for GPL, but I
> am, and only have effort to fight a certain number of battles.
>
> Mike
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi=
les
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

That's cool.  I think the attribution is spot on.

--Nat.

On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On 2/15/06, Jim Arnold <JA...@th...> wrote:
> > Let's just have a "Thanks to the following for
> > their support" section and stick a list of names in it in plain text.
> > That's more in the spirit of open source software, I think.
> >
>
> I made a team page. Please help me make it complete - it's very very
> incomplete right now and my intention is not to insult anyone by leaving
> them off the list, so please don't be mad. I would love to add as many
> people as we can think of.
>
> http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/team.html
>
> Also, if you would prefer I removed or changed your email address please =
let
> me know and I'll do that.
>
>  Cheers,
> Mike.
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Mike R. <mik...@gm...>]

On 15/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> > I don't really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code righ=
t?
> It is only used internally. I thought that GPL allowed for that. A GPL
> license would only become "infectious" if you start shipping your tests.
> I agree, but sadly it's not my opinion that counts. If it's GPL people wi=
ll
> have more difficulty using it in commercial environments. That's bad, and
> regardless of the correctness or otherwise of that position, it's the
> position many commercial companies have taken.
>

Just to echo what Mike says, unfortuantely facts don't often have a
heavier weight than perception. I would definitely pick a BSD- or
Apache- like license and avoid the 3 letters GP & L (even if
pre-fixed)  it makes life for us consultant types really hard.

Of course, if I wasn't a consultant I would be pushing for GPL, but I
am, and only have effort to fight a certain number of battles.

Mike

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Mike M. <mik...@gm...>]

On 2/15/06, sco...@rk... <sco...@rk...> wrote:
>
>  I don't really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code right=
?
> It is only used internally. I thought that GPL allowed for that. A GPL
> license would only become "infectious" if you start shipping your tests.
>
I agree, but sadly it's not my opinion that counts. If it's GPL people will
have more difficulty using it in commercial environments. That's bad, and
regardless of the correctness or otherwise of that position, it's the
position many commercial companies have taken.

Cheers,
Mike.

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Mike M. <mik...@gm...>]

On 2/15/06, Jim Arnold <JA...@th...> wrote:
>
> Let's just have a "Thanks to the following for
> their support" section and stick a list of names in it in plain text.
> That's more in the spirit of open source software, I think.
>

I made a team page. Please help me make it complete - it's very very
incomplete right now and my intention is not to insult anyone by leaving
them off the list, so please don't be mad. I would love to add as many
people as we can think of.

http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/team.html

Also, if you would prefer I removed or changed your email address please le=
t
me know and I'll do that.

Cheers,
Mike.

RE: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[<sco...@rk...>]

I don't really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code
right? It is only used internally. I thought that GPL allowed for that.
A GPL license would only become "infectious" if you start shipping your
tests.

=20

________________________________

From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Mike
Mason
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:55 AM
To: nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

=20

On 2/15/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:

	That's a good point actually.  The Java community is more
open-source
	friendly, but we're now working in the world of Microsoft and
other
	hard-nosed companies.  If they've ripped us off before they'll
do it
	again.  Maybe LGPL is a good compromise.  It provides freedom to
end=20
	users without scaring the pants of companies too cheap to hire
	lawyers.


If it's GPL in any way, shape or form, many companies will not touch it
with a ten foot barge pole, regardless of what the actual license
content says. I said "reputation for being non-business friendly"
because it's not generally the reality, but the reputation is enough for
companies to disallow any use of GPL, LGPL, etc.=20

Is there a license that is stricter about people not ripping off the
code but that is not GPL?

Cheers,
Mike.

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Jim A. <JA...@th...>]

> So, did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?

It would appear so :-)

I wrote code for NMock (v1).  Can I have a big animated gif that says "JIM =

ARNOLD CONTRIBUTED TO NMOCK" somewhere on the site, with a link to my=20
website?  Of course not.  Let's just have a "Thanks to the following for=20
their support" section and stick a list of names in it in plain text.=20
That's more in the spirit of open source software, I think.

Jim





Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...>=20
Sent by: nmo...@li...
15/02/2006 17:02
Please respond to
nmo...@li...


To
nmo...@li...
cc

Subject
Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status






Actually, I seem to remember some exclusions at the time to allow=20
open source working. And most of the origins of the work was done=20
before people joined up because /after/ we joined up many of us were=20
wrung dry by our projects. And some of the contributions from TW=20
employees were derived from XtC discussions with non-TW employees.=20
I'd love to see the mess if TW tried to enforce anything.

So, did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?

S.

On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:51, Paul Gale wrote:
> AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL=20
> intellectual
> property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done=20
> on your
> own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep
> forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name=20
> displayed
> anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the=20
> project
> by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get
> snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW=20
> did not
> put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue.
>
> Paul
>
> On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote:
>>> If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember
>>> happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can=20
>>> put a
>>> link up but not a dominating one.
>>
>> I agree.  If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they
>> should be attributed on the team page.
>>
>> --Nat.
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through=20
>> log
>> files
>> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
>> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD=20
>> SPLUNK!
>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
>> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
>> NMock-two-dev mailing list
>> NMo...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log=20
files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
NMock-two-dev mailing list
NMo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Mike M. <mik...@gm...>]

On 2/15/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
>
> The jMock license has the same condition.  I think we just reworded
> the Apache license.  It was a long time ago.  I think that's fine.
> Having the same license for both projects is probably a good thing.
>

Nat would you mind adding the license to the CVS repository? I think it's
good for the original author to be adding the license rather than some
hanger-on such as myself. Just bung a LICENSE.txt at the root of the nmock2
module and I'll pull that in to the website docs and maybe the source files
(although I've always found wading through license text in source files a
pain).

Cheers,
Mike.

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

The jMock license has the same condition.  I think we just reworded
the Apache license.  It was a long time ago.  I think that's fine.=20
Having the same license for both projects is probably a good thing.

-- Nat.

On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> > Is there a license that is stricter about people not ripping off the co=
de
> but that is not GPL?
> >
>
> Sorry to reply to myself. Apache 2.0 looks like if you mess with the code
> and redistribute it you have to credit the original authors and prominent=
ly
> notify people that you changed the software. Mozilla 1.1 seems to include
> this as well, although it's much more wordy and contains stuff about
> "developers" vs "contributors":
>
> http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
> http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php
>
> Cheers,
> Mike.
>
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

Actually the lawyer in the London office said that TW have no claim on
any code we wrote in our own time unless it competed with a system
being built by or for a client.  E.g. no open-source billing systems
for major ISPs or fixed-income derivative trading systems allowed.

--Nat.

On 2/15/06, Paul Gale <pau...@gm...> wrote:
>
> AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL intellectu=
al
> property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done on you=
r
> own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep
> forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name display=
ed
> anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the proje=
ct
> by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get
> snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW did not
> put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote:
> > > If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember
> > > happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a
> > > link up but not a dominating one.
> >
> > I agree.  If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they
> > should be attributed on the team page.
> >
> > --Nat.
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log
> files
> > for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> > searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> >
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
> > _______________________________________________
> > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > NMo...@li...
> >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> >
>
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Paul G. <pau...@gm...>]

Simply highlighting an issue worthy of consideration. I agree, enforcing it
would be a nightmare, and I don't think they should try. But they do have
some rights, however minor. Personally I think their vicarious IP agreement
stinks, but it is what it is.

Now who got out of bed the wrong side? ;)

Paul

On 15/02/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote:
>
> Actually, I seem to remember some exclusions at the time to allow
> open source working. And most of the origins of the work was done
> before people joined up because /after/ we joined up many of us were
> wrung dry by our projects. And some of the contributions from TW
> employees were derived from XtC discussions with non-TW employees.
> I'd love to see the mess if TW tried to enforce anything.
>
> So, did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?
>
> S.
>
> On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:51, Paul Gale wrote:
> > AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL
> > intellectual
> > property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done
> > on your
> > own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep
> > forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name
> > displayed
> > anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the
> > project
> > by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get
> > snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW
> > did not
> > put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote:
> >>> If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember
> >>> happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can
> >>> put a
> >>> link up but not a dominating one.
> >>
> >> I agree.  If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they
> >> should be attributed on the team page.
> >>
> >> --Nat.
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------
> >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through
> >> log
> >> files
> >> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> >> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD
> >> SPLUNK!
> >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> >> NMo...@li...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> >>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log
> files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Mike M. <mik...@gm...>]

On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Is there a license that is stricter about people not ripping off the code
> but that is not GPL?
>

Sorry to reply to myself. Apache 2.0 looks like if you mess with the code
and redistribute it you have to credit the original authors and prominently
notify people that you changed the software. Mozilla 1.1 seems to include
this as well, although it's much more wordy and contains stuff about
"developers" vs "contributors":

http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php

Cheers,
Mike.

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Stephen F. <st...@m3...>]

Absolutely. Put something on the site where appropriate.

S.

On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:58, Mike Mason wrote:
> I'm trying really really hard not to go anywhere near all that IP and
> ownership stuff. I'm hoping we can come to some kind of balance  
> where a
> little attribution is acceptable to everyone. I am trying to get NMock
> 2.0out of the door, I am not trying to advertise TW. Open-source works
> when all
> participants are engaged and collaborating, which is what I'd like to
> achieve here.
>
> I hadn't even intended to put the logo on every page, we're getting  
> all
> upset about one site mockup, let's chill.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike.

Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Stephen F. <st...@m3...>]

Actually, I seem to remember some exclusions at the time to allow =20
open source working. And most of the origins of the work was done =20
before people joined up because /after/ we joined up many of us were =20
wrung dry by our projects. And some of the contributions from TW =20
employees were derived from XtC discussions with non-TW employees. =20
I'd love to see the mess if TW tried to enforce anything.

So, did we get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?

S.

On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:51, Paul Gale wrote:
> AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL =20
> intellectual
> property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done =20
> on your
> own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep
> forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name =20
> displayed
> anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the =20=

> project
> by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get
> snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW =20
> did not
> put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue.
>
> Paul
>
> On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote:
>>> If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember
>>> happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can =20
>>> put a
>>> link up but not a dominating one.
>>
>> I agree.  If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they
>> should be attributed on the team page.
>>
>> --Nat.
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through =20=

>> log
>> files
>> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
>> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD =20
>> SPLUNK!
>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
>> _______________________________________________
>> NMock-two-dev mailing list
>> NMo...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>>