notion-devel — Development discussion about the notion window manager

Re: [Notion-devel] Is any of the notion@sf.net admins around?

[M R. <mr...@gm...>]

On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 19:58 +0200, Juri Hamburg wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> 
> on irc (freenode, #ion and #notion) we have discussed and found a 
> solution for the license terms issue. So there is a group of people who 
> would like to finally start contributing code to notion. We have tried 
> to contact the admins of no...@sf... over sourceforge web-interface 
> with no luck. As our last attempt to contact the admins, I post this 
> mail to the ML in hope to make any admin appear. If that won't success, 
> we would need to fork an unborn fork. That would be pretty ugly.
> 
> So, dear admins, if you read that, yell at us in here! :)
> 
> Regards
> Juri

Hi, sorry for being inactive the past few months (college finals, then
summer and whatnot), i didn't get your sf emails because, apparently, sf
doesn't notify you of new messages unless you asked it to (that answers
a lot of questions for me personally, since i've been on the other end
of this situation many, many times before, but, i digress).

I replied to your pm regarding code contribution/git access minutes ago
and while you come back to me, i wish you could brief us (i.e. those who
have not been following the discussion on IRC) on what you came up with
regarding the license, contribution, coding, etc... and where we need to
pick up the discussion from this moment forward.

thank you,
M Rawash

[Notion-devel] Is any of the notion@sf.net admins around?

[Juri H. <ju...@fa...>]

  Hello everybody,

on irc (freenode, #ion and #notion) we have discussed and found a 
solution for the license terms issue. So there is a group of people who 
would like to finally start contributing code to notion. We have tried 
to contact the admins of no...@sf... over sourceforge web-interface 
with no luck. As our last attempt to contact the admins, I post this 
mail to the ML in hope to make any admin appear. If that won't success, 
we would need to fork an unborn fork. That would be pretty ugly.

So, dear admins, if you read that, yell at us in here! :)

Regards
Juri

[Notion-devel] Will that be enough to resolve license issues?

[Juri H. <ju...@fa...>]

It looks like the progress has stopped because of the problems with the 
license and lack of energy to start developing from the point where 
license became "unfree".

Would it be enough, if someone (me for example) mails to Tuomo a text 
asking to "approve" something like:

"Me, Tuomo Valkonen, permit the project "notion" to remove the special 
clause:
   'In the text of sections 0-2, 4-12, and 14-16 of the LGPL, "this 
License"
   is to be understood to refer to the LGPL extended with these terms and,
   where applicable, possible similar terms related to the names of other
   works forming a whole. Sections 3 and 13 of the LGPL are void. Where
   contradictory, these additional terms take precedence over the LGPL.'

(did i miss something else?)

from the Ion3 License of <date>,
provided that all references to the Ion3 project (including the names of 
directories and executables) are removed.
"

Would be a pgp-signed reply of Tuomo with text "Approved" enough?

I hope he does use pgp by default, because if he doesn't, he would not 
waste his time to set it up just to permit "fosstards fosstardings his 
project" (i guess you know what i mean). But if we do create a text 
where he just have to press the "reply" and "send" buttons, he would 
possibly do it, just to make us let him alone. What do you think?

Juri

Re: [Notion-devel] One question

[Nick M. <ni...@ni...>]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:34:20AM -0500, kevin granade wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Domingo Gomez <gom...@ho...> wrote:
> > I agree. That's what Tuomo has always said, as long as you don't use
> > ion, it's just GPL.
> 
> Right, which is part of the assumption that he isn't "hostile" to the
> fork, but I'd be very much happier about things if we could proceed
> with a completely clear conscience regarding the license, which means
> complying with it as-written as well as as-intended.
> 
> > One related thing, distro inclusion is not what the users right now want.
> > Everybody here has installed from source and I don't think any common ubuntu
> > user want to install it anyway.
> 
> 1. I'm a user, and I DO want distro inclusion.  I'm definitely up to
> building from source (have done so on several different platforms) and
> even fixing problems in makefiles, lua, and c, but that doesn't mean I
> want to manually build from source every time I want to install the
> program.
> 
> 2. It's not a matter of whether we want to push for distro inclusion
> NOW, but whether we will ever want to do so.  If we proceed without
> addressing the license issues properly, we could end up with a lot of
> work put into a fork that will never be able to progress beyond the
> audience of technical users who are willing to build from source.
> 
> Kevin Granade
> 

Completely agree on both accounts here. Aside from the distro inclusion issues, it's also about whether users themselves will want to run non-free software. Most people I know with the skills to build from source wouldn't.

IMO branching from the last time ion3 was pure (L)GPL is the only sensible option here.

Nick

Re: [Notion-devel] One question

[kevin g. <kev...@gm...>]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Domingo Gomez <gom...@ho...> wrote:
> I agree. That's what Tuomo has always said, as long as you don't use
> ion, it's just GPL.

Right, which is part of the assumption that he isn't "hostile" to the
fork, but I'd be very much happier about things if we could proceed
with a completely clear conscience regarding the license, which means
complying with it as-written as well as as-intended.

> One related thing, distro inclusion is not what the users right now want.
> Everybody here has installed from source and I don't think any common ubuntu
> user want to install it anyway.

1. I'm a user, and I DO want distro inclusion.  I'm definitely up to
building from source (have done so on several different platforms) and
even fixing problems in makefiles, lua, and c, but that doesn't mean I
want to manually build from source every time I want to install the
program.

2. It's not a matter of whether we want to push for distro inclusion
NOW, but whether we will ever want to do so.  If we proceed without
addressing the license issues properly, we could end up with a lot of
work put into a fork that will never be able to progress beyond the
audience of technical users who are willing to build from source.

Kevin Granade

>
>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:01:55 +0200
>> From: eb...@dr...
>> To: not...@li...
>> Subject: Re: [Notion-devel] One question
>>
>> I'm now lazy to check the license, but AFAIK, the situation will be
>> totally different. The license prohibits the distributions to patch
>> it by themselves and name it /ion/. Now when the project's name will
>> not be /ion/, is there any problem with the license? Debian includes
>> not only GPL-license, but also BSD-license, Apache-license,
>> Perl-license, and so on. I think that the license is also "free" as long
>> as the project's name is not /ion/. Please correct me if I understand
>> it bad.
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:38:07 -0400
>> Aron Griffis <agr...@n0...> wrote:
>>
>> > Domingo Gomez wrote: [Thu Apr 15 2010, 03:47:31AM EDT]
>> > > One question, I still don't understand what happens if we keep the
>> > > license as it is.
>> > > Okay, it is not GPL, but the only thing that's important is to have
>> > > a roadmap.
>> >
>> > The current license can cause problems for distro inclusion, as
>> > it has already in the past. IMHO distro inclusion is important so
>> > people don't need to always install from source, rather we can
>> > eventually "aptitude install notion"
>> >
>> > Aron
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>> > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>> > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>> > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Notion-devel mailing list
>> > Not...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr
>> PF 2010.29017703577
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Notion-devel mailing list
>> Not...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>
> ________________________________
> ¡Lucha por tus ídolos o hunde al personajes que quieras! ¡Vota a favor o en
> contra de los más famosos! ¡Nuevo MSN Populus!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>
>

Re: [Notion-devel] One question

[Juri H. <ju...@fa...>]

Domingo Gomez schrieb:
> I agree. That's what Tuomo has always said, as long as you don't use
> ion, it's just GPL.
>
Maybe we should contact a distribution Debian, Ubuntu, whatever to make 
the legal issue clear. I am sure they are more experienced with that and 
probably have an internal lawyer for things like this.

> One related thing, distro inclusion is not what the users right now want.
> Everybody here has installed from source and I don't think any common 
> ubuntu
> user want to install it anyway.
>
> > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:01:55 +0200
> > From: eb...@dr...
> > To: not...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Notion-devel] One question
> >
> > I'm now lazy to check the license, but AFAIK, the situation will be
> > totally different. The license prohibits the distributions to patch
> > it by themselves and name it /ion/. Now when the project's name will
> > not be /ion/, is there any problem with the license? Debian includes
> > not only GPL-license, but also BSD-license, Apache-license,
> > Perl-license, and so on. I think that the license is also "free" as long
> > as the project's name is not /ion/. Please correct me if I understand
> > it bad.

Re: [Notion-devel] One question

[Stéphane M. <ste...@gm...>]

Hi,

As a "common" (maybe not so) FC user, I'd like to see Notion integrated to
my distro, as currently, I have nearly no time to custom it. I loved to use
Ion in the past, but had some difficulties to walk through before I get it
works. Since I had to change my computer, I do not use it anymore.

Best regards.

2010/4/19 Domingo Gomez <gom...@ho...>

>  I agree. That's what Tuomo has always said, as long as you don't use
> ion, it's just GPL.
>
> One related thing, distro inclusion is not what the users right now want.
> Everybody here has installed from source and I don't think any common
> ubuntu
> user want to install it anyway.
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:01:55 +0200
> > From: eb...@dr...
> > To: not...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Notion-devel] One question
> >
> > I'm now lazy to check the license, but AFAIK, the situation will be
> > totally different. The license prohibits the distributions to patch
> > it by themselves and name it /ion/. Now when the project's name will
> > not be /ion/, is there any problem with the license? Debian includes
> > not only GPL-license, but also BSD-license, Apache-license,
> > Perl-license, and so on. I think that the license is also "free" as long
> > as the project's name is not /ion/. Please correct me if I understand
> > it bad.
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:38:07 -0400
> > Aron Griffis <agr...@n0...> wrote:
> >
> > > Domingo Gomez wrote: [Thu Apr 15 2010, 03:47:31AM EDT]
> > > > One question, I still don't understand what happens if we keep the
> > > > license as it is.
> > > > Okay, it is not GPL, but the only thing that's important is to have
> > > > a roadmap.
> > >
> > > The current license can cause problems for distro inclusion, as
> > > it has already in the past. IMHO distro inclusion is important so
> > > people don't need to always install from source, rather we can
> > > eventually "aptitude install notion"
> > >
> > > Aron
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> > > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> > > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> > > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Notion-devel mailing list
> > > Not...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr
> > PF 2010.29017703577
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Notion-devel mailing list
> > Not...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>
> ------------------------------
> ¡Lucha por tus ídolos o hunde al personajes que quieras! ¡Vota a favor o en
> contra de los más famosos! ¡Nuevo MSN Populus!<http://populus.es.msn.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
>
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>
>

Re: [Notion-devel] One question

[Domingo G. <gom...@ho...>]

I agree. That's what Tuomo has always said, as long as you don't useion, it's just GPL.
One related thing, distro inclusion is not what the users right now want.Everybody here has installed from source and I don't think any common ubuntuuser want to install it anyway.

> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:01:55 +0200
> From: eb...@dr...
> To: not...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Notion-devel] One question
> 
> I'm now lazy to check the license, but AFAIK, the situation will be
> totally different. The license prohibits the distributions to patch
> it by themselves and name it /ion/. Now when the project's name will
> not be /ion/, is there any problem with the license? Debian includes
> not only GPL-license, but also BSD-license, Apache-license,
> Perl-license, and so on. I think that the license is also "free" as long
> as the project's name is not /ion/. Please correct me if I understand
> it bad.
> 
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:38:07 -0400
> Aron Griffis <agr...@n0...> wrote:
> 
> > Domingo Gomez wrote:  [Thu Apr 15 2010, 03:47:31AM EDT]
> > > One question, I still don't understand  what happens if we keep the
> > > license as it is.
> > > Okay, it is not GPL, but the only thing that's important is to have
> > > a roadmap.
> > 
> > The current license can cause problems for distro inclusion, as
> > it has already in the past. IMHO distro inclusion is important so
> > people don't need to always install from source, rather we can
> > eventually "aptitude install notion"
> > 
> > Aron
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Notion-devel mailing list
> > Not...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                                  Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr
>                                  PF 2010.29017703577
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Recibe un SMS de tu Hotmail vayas donde vayas. ¡Date de alta!
http://home.mobile.live.com/MobileAttach.mvc/?mkt=es-es

Re: [Notion-devel] One question

[ebik <eb...@dr...>]

I'm now lazy to check the license, but AFAIK, the situation will be
totally different. The license prohibits the distributions to patch
it by themselves and name it /ion/. Now when the project's name will
not be /ion/, is there any problem with the license? Debian includes
not only GPL-license, but also BSD-license, Apache-license,
Perl-license, and so on. I think that the license is also "free" as long
as the project's name is not /ion/. Please correct me if I understand
it bad.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:38:07 -0400
Aron Griffis <agr...@n0...> wrote:

> Domingo Gomez wrote:  [Thu Apr 15 2010, 03:47:31AM EDT]
> > One question, I still don't understand  what happens if we keep the
> > license as it is.
> > Okay, it is not GPL, but the only thing that's important is to have
> > a roadmap.
> 
> The current license can cause problems for distro inclusion, as
> it has already in the past. IMHO distro inclusion is important so
> people don't need to always install from source, rather we can
> eventually "aptitude install notion"
> 
> Aron
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
> 


-- 
                                 Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr
                                 PF 2010.29017703577

Re: [Notion-devel] One question

[Aron G. <agr...@n0...>]

Domingo Gomez wrote:  [Thu Apr 15 2010, 03:47:31AM EDT]
> One question, I still don't understand  what happens if we keep the
> license as it is.
> Okay, it is not GPL, but the only thing that's important is to have a
> roadmap.

The current license can cause problems for distro inclusion, as
it has already in the past. IMHO distro inclusion is important so
people don't need to always install from source, rather we can
eventually "aptitude install notion"

Aron

[Notion-devel] One question

[Domingo G. <gom...@ho...>]

Hi to everybody,One question, I still don't understand  what happens if we keep the license as it is.Okay, it is not GPL, but the only thing that's important is to have a roadmap.This is totally secondary and moreover, I still think that the license is fair (otherwise I wouldn't use Ion).Cheers,Ruinator 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Tus datos personales, más seguros con Internet Explorer 8.
http://www.microsoft.com/spain/windows/internet-explorer/default.aspx

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...>]

Sorry for a bit late reply.

Tuomo actually replied already late sunday. His answer was mostly inconclusive for the questions regarding names, renaming, and his future involvement/development on ion. He confirmed what we already assumed/knew though: The license can't be changed to regular LGPL in a renamed fork.

He did say that he sometimes have thought about letting the license go though.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:25:54 +0200, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:

> hi everybody, thought I'd give you a little update of what's going on.
> Ole Brønner and I spoke earlier about our legal situation (with regard
> to Tuomo's license); he's in favour of getting Tuomo's blessing to fork
> the latest Ion3(plus) release, while i'm in favour of forking an earlier
> version of Ion that didn't include Tuomo's terms. Ole has contacted
> Tuomo and we have set a deadline ("a couple of days") for a response,
> and since it's very likely that Tuomo won't respond, i think we should
> be aware of our other options while we wait, and here they are:
>
> - forking Ion while keeping Tuomo's license, this, of course, will
> render the fork 'non-free', and infringe on our own right to license any
> future work under a different license.
>
> - fork Ion and change the license (possibly to GPL), this will leave us
> vulnerable to Tuomo's hostility (assuming he is indeed hostile), since
> it's basically 'illegal' in light of Tuomo's additional terms (which,
> according to Tuomo, "take precedence over the LGPL").
>
> - fork an earlier version of Ion that didn't include Tuomo's additional
> terms (or one that had a loophole in it), this means a lot of extra
> work, when many people would like to see us moving on (start adding new
> features, rather than going back and fix/add old ones).
>
>
> as you can see, all our options are lacking in one way or another, so
> it'd indeed be good if we could get Tuomo's blessing, but i think we
> should remain realistic going forward; so if you have other
> ideas/opinions, please, do tell.
>
> regards,
> M Rawash
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>


-- 
Ole Jørgen Brønner

[Notion-devel] Tarball of pre-namepolicy-notice (old license)

[Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...>]

I posted this in another thread but seems like some people missed it.

Darcs patch/change descriptions:
	http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/post-license-changes.txt

Tarball of pre-license-change (from darcs, not an "official" stable release):
	http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/ion3-prelicense-change.tgz
(size due to inclusion of darcs repo)

Should build with normal changes to system.mk


- Ole Jørgen Brønner

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[Aron G. <agr...@n0...>]

M Rawash wrote:  [Mon Apr 12 2010, 03:50:56PM EDT]
>On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 14:30 -0400, Marc Hartstein wrote:
>> Excerpts from M Rawash's message of Mon Apr 12 11:25:54 -0400 2010:
>> > - fork Ion and change the license (possibly to GPL), this will leave us
>> > vulnerable to Tuomo's hostility (assuming he is indeed hostile), since
>> > it's basically 'illegal' in light of Tuomo's additional terms (which,
>> > according to Tuomo, "take precedence over the LGPL").
>>
>> It seems a fork-and-rename is consistent with the intent, if not the
>> terms, of the modified LGPL.
>
>intent, maybe, terms, not so sure; if so, i believe Tuomo
>"unintentionally" made it impossible to fork Ion under a different
>license, that's why we're still in need of a clarification on his part,
>and if that indeed was his intention, we have to consider other options.

To me it seems irrelevant in any case. If Tuomo doesn't clarify
and/or give his blessing on a fork, then we are putting distro
inclusion at risk. Tuomo would only need to complain and a distro
would kick notion out instantly rather than deal with it.

Aron

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[Aron G. <agr...@n0...>]

M Rawash wrote:  [Mon Apr 12 2010, 02:58:35PM EDT]
>I'd say we need to be more centralised (imagine someone having to
>bookmark 3 websites in order to monitor one project, not good),

I'm not sure that's really an issue? Lots of projects are split
in this manner. Google search for 
"site:sourceforge.net link:github.com"

>i'd vote
>for Savannah but i haven't checked all the other options.

Savannah is fine with me too. I'm just a fan of github. :-)

Aron

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[kevin g. <kev...@gm...>]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:50 PM, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 14:30 -0400, Marc Hartstein wrote:
>> Excerpts from M Rawash's message of Mon Apr 12 11:25:54 -0400 2010:
>> > - fork Ion and change the license (possibly to GPL), this will leave us
>> > vulnerable to Tuomo's hostility (assuming he is indeed hostile), since
>> > it's basically 'illegal' in light of Tuomo's additional terms (which,
>> > according to Tuomo, "take precedence over the LGPL").
>>
>> It seems a fork-and-rename is consistent with the intent, if not the
>> terms, of the modified LGPL.
>
> intent, maybe, terms, not so sure; if so, i believe Tuomo
> "unintentionally" made it impossible to fork Ion under a different
> license, that's why we're still in need of a clarification on his part,
> and if that indeed was his intention, we have to consider other options.
>
>> It would seem a release under a modified LGPL with the rider that the
>> project or its forks may not be renamed to Ion, ion3, or anything which
>> would associate it with the Ion project, and may not contain anything
>> which refers users to the Ion project or Tuomo Valkonen for support, and
>> that this project and its forks may not change to any license which does
>> not contain, or invalidates, this rider would be consistent with the
>> goal of the license.
>>
>> IANAL, but shouldn't this be doable in a reasonably straightforward way?
>> The point of the name change is that it and not referring back to ion is
>> what's required by the license.
>>
>> Yes, it wouldn't be "pure GPL", but if the only additional restriction
>> is "can't rename this to Ion or ask Tuomo for tech support, must
>> preserve this restriction", is that going to relegate it to
>> scary/non-free? It's not restricting a distro from doing anything they'd
>> actually do anyway [not like the current ion license].
>
>
> here's the part that, i believe, makes this scenario un-doable:
> "In the text of sections 0-2, 4-12, and 14-16 of the LGPL, "this
> License" is to be understood to refer to the LGPL __extended with these
> terms__ and, where applicable, possible similar terms related to the
> names of other works forming a whole. Sections 3 and 13 of the LGPL are
> void. Where contradictory, these additional terms take precedence over
> the LGPL."
>
> this means that every single reference to "this License" in Tuomo's code
> points to Tuomo's terms (in addition to the LGPL), which makes it
> 'illegal' for us to replace the license with, say, GPL or something
> similar.
>
> this, of course, is based on my own interpretation of the above text,
> and is not necessarily correct, so please tell us if you see it
> differently.

I *think* he's saying that we could perhaps propose such terms to
Tuomo and have some chance of him agreeing to it.  Personally I'm a
bit worried that he'll refuse any compromise we try, but I'd be
overjoyed to be proven wrong.

-Kevin Granade

>
> regards,
> M Rawash
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[M R. <mr...@gm...>]

On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 14:30 -0400, Marc Hartstein wrote:
> Excerpts from M Rawash's message of Mon Apr 12 11:25:54 -0400 2010:
> > - fork Ion and change the license (possibly to GPL), this will leave us
> > vulnerable to Tuomo's hostility (assuming he is indeed hostile), since
> > it's basically 'illegal' in light of Tuomo's additional terms (which,
> > according to Tuomo, "take precedence over the LGPL").
> 
> It seems a fork-and-rename is consistent with the intent, if not the
> terms, of the modified LGPL.

intent, maybe, terms, not so sure; if so, i believe Tuomo
"unintentionally" made it impossible to fork Ion under a different
license, that's why we're still in need of a clarification on his part,
and if that indeed was his intention, we have to consider other options.

> It would seem a release under a modified LGPL with the rider that the
> project or its forks may not be renamed to Ion, ion3, or anything which
> would associate it with the Ion project, and may not contain anything
> which refers users to the Ion project or Tuomo Valkonen for support, and
> that this project and its forks may not change to any license which does
> not contain, or invalidates, this rider would be consistent with the
> goal of the license.
> 
> IANAL, but shouldn't this be doable in a reasonably straightforward way?
> The point of the name change is that it and not referring back to ion is
> what's required by the license.
> 
> Yes, it wouldn't be "pure GPL", but if the only additional restriction
> is "can't rename this to Ion or ask Tuomo for tech support, must
> preserve this restriction", is that going to relegate it to
> scary/non-free? It's not restricting a distro from doing anything they'd
> actually do anyway [not like the current ion license].


here's the part that, i believe, makes this scenario un-doable:
"In the text of sections 0-2, 4-12, and 14-16 of the LGPL, "this
License" is to be understood to refer to the LGPL __extended with these
terms__ and, where applicable, possible similar terms related to the
names of other works forming a whole. Sections 3 and 13 of the LGPL are
void. Where contradictory, these additional terms take precedence over
the LGPL."

this means that every single reference to "this License" in Tuomo's code
points to Tuomo's terms (in addition to the LGPL), which makes it
'illegal' for us to replace the license with, say, GPL or something
similar.

this, of course, is based on my own interpretation of the above text,
and is not necessarily correct, so please tell us if you see it
differently.

regards,
M Rawash

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[M R. <mr...@gm...>]

On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 14:28 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Olof Johansson wrote:  [Mon Apr 12 2010, 01:24:00PM EDT]
> > On 2010-04-12 18:58, M Rawash wrote:
> > > IMO, a host with no ssh access is a bad idea, as for google, they
> > > definitely don't have ads (just a few unnecessary instructions that can
> > > 'probably' be disabled), they do get spammed a lot though (which can
> > > 'probably' be avoided too).
> > 
> > Google is bound by US law to block users from Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc[1] 
> > (like SF, but I've read that SF has circumvented this (?))  I'd urge 
> > against using Google to host free software projects. So, once again, I'd 
> > recommend using own hosting or maybe Savannah
> 
> I haven't looked at Savannah but I've been impressed with github.
> How about using sf.net for web host (unless there's something
> better), github.com for code host and librelist.com for mailing
> lists?
> 
I'd say we need to be more centralised (imagine someone having to
bookmark 3 websites in order to monitor one project, not good), i'd vote
for Savannah but i haven't checked all the other options.


M Rawash

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[M R. <mr...@gm...>]

On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 14:08 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Hi Rawash (is this how you prefer to be addressed?)

yah, why not? :)

> Thanks for this update...
> 
> M Rawash wrote:  [Mon Apr 12 2010, 11:25:54AM EDT]
> >hi everybody, thought I'd give you a little update of what's going on.
> >Ole Brønner and I spoke earlier about our legal situation (with regard
> >to Tuomo's license); he's in favour of getting Tuomo's blessing to fork
> >the latest Ion3(plus) release, while i'm in favour of forking an earlier
> >version of Ion that didn't include Tuomo's terms. Ole has contacted
> >Tuomo and we have set a deadline ("a couple of days") for a response,
> 
> This is certainly the most desirable option, though it does seem
> unlikely that Tuomo will acquiesce. No offense intended, but if
> he saw your comments earlier to the tune of "let him sue!" that
> probably didn't help.

ok, maybe that was too early, but i assumed (and i'm probably still
right), that Tuomo's rejection of what we're doing is a done deal (based
on his responses to earlier emails/"Fake Tuomo"); but Ole had a
different opinion, hence, the current situation.

> >and since it's very likely that Tuomo won't respond, i think we should
> >be aware of our other options while we wait, and here they are:
> >
> >- forking Ion while keeping Tuomo's license, this, of course, will
> >render the fork 'non-free', and infringe on our own right to license any
> >future work under a different license.
> 
> IMHO we want to avoid this option because we will continue to
> have problems getting into distributions.

> >- fork Ion and change the license (possibly to GPL), this will leave us
> >vulnerable to Tuomo's hostility (assuming he is indeed hostile), since
> >it's basically 'illegal' in light of Tuomo's additional terms (which,
> >according to Tuomo, "take precedence over the LGPL").
> 
> IMHO we want to avoid this option too. We will be on dubious
> legal ground and distributions will not want to deal with it.

> >- fork an earlier version of Ion that didn't include Tuomo's additional
> >terms (or one that had a loophole in it), this means a lot of extra
> >work, when many people would like to see us moving on (start adding new
> >features, rather than going back and fix/add old ones).
> 
> If Tuomo doesn't give his blessing to fork current ion3 with
> simple LGPL then I think this is the next best option. It means
> more work but it leaves us free of license problems.

+1 on all accounts.


regards,
M Rawash

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[Marc H. <mar...@al...>]

Excerpts from M Rawash's message of Mon Apr 12 11:25:54 -0400 2010:
> - fork Ion and change the license (possibly to GPL), this will leave us
> vulnerable to Tuomo's hostility (assuming he is indeed hostile), since
> it's basically 'illegal' in light of Tuomo's additional terms (which,
> according to Tuomo, "take precedence over the LGPL").

It seems a fork-and-rename is consistent with the intent, if not the
terms, of the modified LGPL.

It would seem a release under a modified LGPL with the rider that the
project or its forks may not be renamed to Ion, ion3, or anything which
would associate it with the Ion project, and may not contain anything
which refers users to the Ion project or Tuomo Valkonen for support, and
that this project and its forks may not change to any license which does
not contain, or invalidates, this rider would be consistent with the
goal of the license.

IANAL, but shouldn't this be doable in a reasonably straightforward way?
The point of the name change is that it and not referring back to ion is
what's required by the license.

Yes, it wouldn't be "pure GPL", but if the only additional restriction
is "can't rename this to Ion or ask Tuomo for tech support, must
preserve this restriction", is that going to relegate it to
scary/non-free? It's not restricting a distro from doing anything they'd
actually do anyway [not like the current ion license].

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[Aron G. <agr...@n0...>]

Olof Johansson wrote:  [Mon Apr 12 2010, 01:24:00PM EDT]
> On 2010-04-12 18:58, M Rawash wrote:
> > IMO, a host with no ssh access is a bad idea, as for google, they
> > definitely don't have ads (just a few unnecessary instructions that can
> > 'probably' be disabled), they do get spammed a lot though (which can
> > 'probably' be avoided too).
> 
> Google is bound by US law to block users from Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc[1] 
> (like SF, but I've read that SF has circumvented this (?))  I'd urge 
> against using Google to host free software projects. So, once again, I'd 
> recommend using own hosting or maybe Savannah

I haven't looked at Savannah but I've been impressed with github.
How about using sf.net for web host (unless there's something
better), github.com for code host and librelist.com for mailing
lists?

Aron

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[Aron G. <agr...@n0...>]

Hi Rawash (is this how you prefer to be addressed?)

Thanks for this update...

M Rawash wrote:  [Mon Apr 12 2010, 11:25:54AM EDT]
>hi everybody, thought I'd give you a little update of what's going on.
>Ole Brønner and I spoke earlier about our legal situation (with regard
>to Tuomo's license); he's in favour of getting Tuomo's blessing to fork
>the latest Ion3(plus) release, while i'm in favour of forking an earlier
>version of Ion that didn't include Tuomo's terms. Ole has contacted
>Tuomo and we have set a deadline ("a couple of days") for a response,

This is certainly the most desirable option, though it does seem
unlikely that Tuomo will acquiesce. No offense intended, but if
he saw your comments earlier to the tune of "let him sue!" that
probably didn't help.

>and since it's very likely that Tuomo won't respond, i think we should
>be aware of our other options while we wait, and here they are:
>
>- forking Ion while keeping Tuomo's license, this, of course, will
>render the fork 'non-free', and infringe on our own right to license any
>future work under a different license.

IMHO we want to avoid this option because we will continue to
have problems getting into distributions.

>- fork Ion and change the license (possibly to GPL), this will leave us
>vulnerable to Tuomo's hostility (assuming he is indeed hostile), since
>it's basically 'illegal' in light of Tuomo's additional terms (which,
>according to Tuomo, "take precedence over the LGPL").

IMHO we want to avoid this option too. We will be on dubious
legal ground and distributions will not want to deal with it.

>- fork an earlier version of Ion that didn't include Tuomo's additional
>terms (or one that had a loophole in it), this means a lot of extra
>work, when many people would like to see us moving on (start adding new
>features, rather than going back and fix/add old ones).

If Tuomo doesn't give his blessing to fork current ion3 with
simple LGPL then I think this is the next best option. It means
more work but it leaves us free of license problems.

Regards,
Aron

[Notion-devel] For those interested in reading some code

[Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...>]

Some simple adapter tools for cscope / ctags:
	http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/tools.tgz

(Outdated?) Limited source documentation:
	http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/ionnotes/

The configuration manual is helpful too:
	http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/ionconf/

Also see the README in libtu/libextl


-- Ole Jørgen Brønner

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[M R. <mr...@gm...>]

On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 19:24 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On 2010-04-12 18:58, M Rawash wrote:
> > IMO, a host with no ssh access is a bad idea, as for google, they
> > definitely don't have ads (just a few unnecessary instructions that can
> > 'probably' be disabled), they do get spammed a lot though (which can
> > 'probably' be avoided too).
> 
> Google is bound by US law to block users from Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc[1] 
> (like SF, but I've read that SF has circumvented this (?))  I'd urge 
> against using Google to host free software projects. So, once again, I'd 
> recommend using own hosting or maybe Savannah (I don't personally have 
> experience with Savannah, so if anybody disagrees, please speak up). 
> Wikipedia has a comparison article on code hosting[2].  
> 
> 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Code#Access_restrictions
> 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_software_hosting_facilities

nice, thanks for the info/links, i'll be checking them out tonight,
maybe narrowing them down to a few good choices...

cheers,
M Rawash

Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[Olof J. <zi...@et...>]

On 2010-04-12 18:58, M Rawash wrote:
> IMO, a host with no ssh access is a bad idea, as for google, they
> definitely don't have ads (just a few unnecessary instructions that can
> 'probably' be disabled), they do get spammed a lot though (which can
> 'probably' be avoided too).

Google is bound by US law to block users from Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc[1] 
(like SF, but I've read that SF has circumvented this (?))  I'd urge 
against using Google to host free software projects. So, once again, I'd 
recommend using own hosting or maybe Savannah (I don't personally have 
experience with Savannah, so if anybody disagrees, please speak up). 
Wikipedia has a comparison article on code hosting[2].  

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Code#Access_restrictions
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_software_hosting_facilities

-- 
Olof Johansson
 jabber: ol...@et...
    irc: zibri on Freenode, OFTC
    uri: http://www.stdlib.se/