notion-devel — Development discussion about the notion window manager

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

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

On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 11:06 -0500, kevin granade wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:25 AM, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:
> > - 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).
> >
> 
> Another "PRO" for this option is the libtu and libextl situation.
> AFAIK these libraries are also unmaintained now, and I don't imagine
> them growing in popularity to the point of it being helpful to have
> them as separate libraries.  IIRC, they were still part of the same
> package at the point when the license changes were made, so will be
> part of our original code.  I haven't had a chance to really dig in,
> so for all I know this might be a trivial issue.  All I know is this
> is the issue I ran into (trying to compile/install ion3 on a fresh
> system and failing since libtu/libextl were missing) that made me
> aware of the true extent of the problem.
> 
> Also, what are the libtu and libextl licenses like?  if they're
> standard lgpl we have a great deal of flexibility with what we do with
> them, to the point of possibly using the latest libtu/libextl along
> with the older version of ion as a starting point, but if they are a
> similar modified license, it seems it will be all-or-nothing with
> regard to which version of the sources we use as a starting point.

libtu and libextl are both licensed under standard LGPL, and Tuomo
didn't consider them as part of Ion (forming a whole), which means we
really can do whatever onto them. we will most likely distribute them
with notion and keep their licenses unchanged.

> On another note, how much information do we have available concerning
> the issues that were fixed in the time between the license change and
> the most recent release?  It will make a rather large difference to
> how easy that work will be to reproduce if we have detailed
> information about the bugs we want to work on.
> More concretely, which resources would we be able to use if we do use
> the pre-license-change source code as a starting point:
> mailing list archives
> darcs commit messages
> changelog
> other???

well, depending on which version/snapshot we will fork, we can either
get a darcs log ('$ darcs changes') or a diff output. either way, we can
easily have a very accurate list of (two years worth of) changes, 

> Thanks for the update,
> Kevin Granade
> 
> >
> > 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
> 
> grr, I have crappy managed hosting with no ssh access, I'm tempted to
> get better hosting just so I can get rid of these ads, but I also
> haven't set anything like that up before.  Does google's project
> hosting do the same thing?


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).

regards,
M Rawash

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

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

>> - 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).
>>
>
> Another "PRO" for this option is the libtu and libextl situation.
> AFAIK these libraries are also unmaintained now, and I don't imagine
> them growing in popularity to the point of it being helpful to have
> them as separate libraries.  IIRC, they were still part of the same
> package at the point when the license changes were made, so will be
> part of our original code.  I haven't had a chance to really dig in,
> so for all I know this might be a trivial issue.  All I know is this
> is the issue I ran into (trying to compile/install ion3 on a fresh
> system and failing since libtu/libextl were missing) that made me
> aware of the true extent of the problem.

I'm 99% sure this is a trivial issue.

> Also, what are the libtu and libextl licenses like?  if they're
> standard lgpl we have a great deal of flexibility with what we do with
> them, to the point of possibly using the latest libtu/libextl along
> with the older version of ion as a starting point, but if they are a
> similar modified license, it seems it will be all-or-nothing with
> regard to which version of the sources we use as a starting point.

They use standard licenses:
http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/repos/libextl-3/LICENSE
http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/repos/libtu-3/LICENSE

Last change in libextl is: Sat Dec 15 15:38:58 CET 2007
                libtu   is: Thu Dec 20 19:04:14 CET 2007
... if my checkout is the most recent. (I'm quite sure of that)

PS: does anyone know how I can check when a darcs repo was checked out
and if it was checked out lazily?

Date of license modification in ion3(-plus): Fri Apr 27 23:50:40 CEST 2007

> On another note, how much information do we have available concerning
> the issues that were fixed in the time between the license change and
> the most recent release?  It will make a rather large difference to
> how easy that work will be to reproduce if we have detailed
> information about the bugs we want to work on.
> More concretely, which resources would we be able to use if we do use
> the pre-license-change source code as a starting point:
> mailing list archives
> darcs commit messages
> changelog
> other???

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)

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

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

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:25 AM, 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).
>

Another "PRO" for this option is the libtu and libextl situation.
AFAIK these libraries are also unmaintained now, and I don't imagine
them growing in popularity to the point of it being helpful to have
them as separate libraries.  IIRC, they were still part of the same
package at the point when the license changes were made, so will be
part of our original code.  I haven't had a chance to really dig in,
so for all I know this might be a trivial issue.  All I know is this
is the issue I ran into (trying to compile/install ion3 on a fresh
system and failing since libtu/libextl were missing) that made me
aware of the true extent of the problem.

Also, what are the libtu and libextl licenses like?  if they're
standard lgpl we have a great deal of flexibility with what we do with
them, to the point of possibly using the latest libtu/libextl along
with the older version of ion as a starting point, but if they are a
similar modified license, it seems it will be all-or-nothing with
regard to which version of the sources we use as a starting point.

On another note, how much information do we have available concerning
the issues that were fixed in the time between the license change and
the most recent release?  It will make a rather large difference to
how easy that work will be to reproduce if we have detailed
information about the bugs we want to work on.
More concretely, which resources would we be able to use if we do use
the pre-license-change source code as a starting point:
mailing list archives
darcs commit messages
changelog
other???

Thanks for the update,
Kevin Granade

>
> 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

grr, I have crappy managed hosting with no ssh access, I'm tempted to
get better hosting just so I can get rid of these ads, but I also
haven't set anything like that up before.  Does google's project
hosting do the same thing?

> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>

[Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

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

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

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 18:28 +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:52:36 +0200, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 11:10 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-10 05:56, M Rawash wrote:
> >> > let's not forget the LGPL is itself copyrighted...
> >>
> >> Well, that's not *your* problem, that's something between FSF and
> >> Tuomo. It probably doesn't make the license invalid.
> >>
> >
> > so, what do you reckon we should do?
> >
> >
> > i suggest we find the latest ion3 release that didn't include Tuomo's
> > license and build on it from there (implementing all the later changes
> > with our own code and license it under GPL); but whatever we do, i'm not
> > in favour of keeping Tuomo's license (it's what drove people away in the
> > first place).
> >
> > regards,
> > M Rawash
> 
> Patch descriptions of the post license changes: (40kB attachment limit?!)
> http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/post-license-changes.txt

yah, i already ran a diff on an older version of ion (could we use darcs
to revert to a more precise snapshot?), seems like a lot of work, but i
think it's worth it if we want this fork to be truly free...


M Rawash

PS: about the 40kB attachment limit, i believe it's sourceforge's
policy, nothing in the admin interface says anything about a size limit.
well, i guess we could move to http://savannah.nongnu.org/ (once we have
a freeier license, that is) like Olof Johansson suggested; does anyone
know what kind SCMs they support?

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:52:36 +0200, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 11:10 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On 2010-04-10 05:56, M Rawash wrote:
>> > let's not forget the LGPL is itself copyrighted...
>>
>> Well, that's not *your* problem, that's something between FSF and
>> Tuomo. It probably doesn't make the license invalid.
>>
>
> so, what do you reckon we should do?
>
>
> i suggest we find the latest ion3 release that didn't include Tuomo's
> license and build on it from there (implementing all the later changes
> with our own code and license it under GPL); but whatever we do, i'm not
> in favour of keeping Tuomo's license (it's what drove people away in the
> first place).
>
> regards,
> M Rawash

Patch descriptions of the post license changes: (40kB attachment limit?!)
http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/post-license-changes.txt

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

[Alexander R. <a....@gm...>]

Maybe you should try to add the search path to the start of notion:

e.g. notion -s /usr/local

If you used the PKGBUILD the files will be installed to /usr and should work out of the box...

$ notion --help
Usage: notion [options]

  -display host:dpy.scr      X display to use
  -c, -conffile config_file  Configuration file
  -s, -searchdir dir         Add directory to search path
  -oneroot                   Manage default screen only
  -session session_name      Name of session (affects savefiles)
  -smclientid client_id      Session manager client ID
  -noerrorlog                Do not create startup error log and display it
                             with xmessage.
  -h, -help                  Show this help
  -V, -version               Show program version
  -about                     Show about text


On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:41:48 +0200
Juri Hamburg <ju...@fa...> wrote:

> On 09/04/10 22:07, Alexander Rink wrote:
> > For your convenience (if you are an archlinux user like me), heres the PKGBUILD
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:52:56 +0200
> > Alexander Rink<a....@gm...>  wrote:
> >
> >    
> >> Grab it while it's hot: https://sourceforge.net/downloads/notion/notion-20100409.tar.gz
> >>
> >> I've replaced function names and constants, filenames, directory names in all lua and c files as well as in the pot/man files. It's very possible that I missed a few places, but I think it's a good start. It compiles fine and works while im typing this.
> >>
> >> Please be aware that even the name and location of the config files has change (/etc/notion, .notion/, cfg_notioncore.lua cfg_notion.lua ...)
> >>
> >> Please test it on your system (e.g. make -B PREFIX="/usr" ETCDIR="/etc/notion"; make PREFIX="/usr" ETCDIR="/etc/notion" install)
> >>
> >> I'm a bit tired now, took me 6 hours to get this working...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 19:45:57 +0200
> >> Alexander Rink<a....@gm...>  wrote:
> >>      
> 
> Compilation goes well here, but get an error when i try to run notion:
> 
> notion startup error log:
> >>  /usr/local/notion/lib/notion/lc/notioncore_ext.lc: bad header in precompiled chunk
> >>  Unable to find 'notioncore_ext' on search path.
> >>  Refusing to start due to encountered errors.
> 
> Not sure what causes the problem.
> Unlikely, but maybe some kind of conflict with installed 
> ion3/ion3plus/pwm/pwm3plus? Tried installing also with PKGBUILD provided 
> by you, same result. Anyone clue?
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


-- 
Alexander Rink <a....@gm...>

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 11:10 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On 2010-04-10 05:56, M Rawash wrote:
> > let's not forget the LGPL is itself copyrighted...
> 
> Well, that's not *your* problem, that's something between FSF and
> Tuomo. It probably doesn't make the license invalid.
> 

so, what do you reckon we should do? 


i suggest we find the latest ion3 release that didn't include Tuomo's
license and build on it from there (implementing all the later changes
with our own code and license it under GPL); but whatever we do, i'm not
in favour of keeping Tuomo's license (it's what drove people away in the
first place).

regards,
M Rawash

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On 09/04/10 22:07, Alexander Rink wrote:
> For your convenience (if you are an archlinux user like me), heres the PKGBUILD
>
> Alex
>
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:52:56 +0200
> Alexander Rink<a....@gm...>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Grab it while it's hot: https://sourceforge.net/downloads/notion/notion-20100409.tar.gz
>>
>> I've replaced function names and constants, filenames, directory names in all lua and c files as well as in the pot/man files. It's very possible that I missed a few places, but I think it's a good start. It compiles fine and works while im typing this.
>>
>> Please be aware that even the name and location of the config files has change (/etc/notion, .notion/, cfg_notioncore.lua cfg_notion.lua ...)
>>
>> Please test it on your system (e.g. make -B PREFIX="/usr" ETCDIR="/etc/notion"; make PREFIX="/usr" ETCDIR="/etc/notion" install)
>>
>> I'm a bit tired now, took me 6 hours to get this working...
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 19:45:57 +0200
>> Alexander Rink<a....@gm...>  wrote:
>>      

Compilation goes well here, but get an error when i try to run notion:

notion startup error log:
>>  /usr/local/notion/lib/notion/lc/notioncore_ext.lc: bad header in precompiled chunk
>>  Unable to find 'notioncore_ext' on search path.
>>  Refusing to start due to encountered errors.

Not sure what causes the problem.
Unlikely, but maybe some kind of conflict with installed 
ion3/ion3plus/pwm/pwm3plus? Tried installing also with PKGBUILD provided 
by you, same result. Anyone clue?

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On 2010-04-10 05:56, M Rawash wrote:
> let's not forget the LGPL is itself copyrighted...

Well, that's not *your* problem, that's something between FSF and
Tuomo. It probably doesn't make the license invalid.

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

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:35:03 +0200, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 00:57 +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote:
>> >> Couple questions:
>> >> 1. Are we basing the fork on ion-3 stable, and not the development branch (ion-3plus)?
>> >> I'm not really sure how much differences there is, but are there reasons not to base it on the development branch? (ion-3plus seems quite stable to me)
>> >
>> > ion-3plus does not include libtu and libextl, which means they need to
>> > be compiled separately before you can compile notion. ion-3 resembles
>> > more what what notion should look like when it's released, and we can
>> > always add ion-3plus' changes later.
>>
>> Well, I'd say it's easier (not any job at all really) to add libtu and
>> libextl to ion-3plus than backporting the changes from ion-3plus
>> later. (I guess that would involve more license complications too?)
>
> the separate libtu and libextl are missing their makefiles, and
> considering that all the work can be done with one patch application,
> i'd say it's about the same, also both versions have the same licence so
> i wouldn't worry about complications.
>

I have versions with makefiles:
http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/repos/libextl-3/Makefile
http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/repos/libtu-3/Makefile

To make a patch apply the same name changes need to be done in ion-3plus too though

I've attached what should be the new changes in ion-3plus. So it's not that much.
To big to attach: http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/new-changes-in-ion-3plus-detailed.txt

If we are planning to continue using darcs it will be nice to have the old history available. (well, even if the scm is changed that could be useful)


- Ole Jørgen Brønner

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:16 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> M Rawash wrote:  [Fri Apr 09 2010, 07:35:03PM EDT]
> >> Agreed! (or some clarifications from Tuomo, but doesn't seem to be very responsive)
> >
> >I'd say screw it, let him sue, he doesn't have any legal grounds (saying
> >"section 'x' is void" does not automagically make it so)
> 
> IANAL, but I think you might be wrong. It's his copyright and his
> license based on the LGPL. The LGPL holds no magical powers to
> force people to use it unmodified. 

according to the gnu website, it does:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

"You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided that you call your license by another name and do not include
the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at
the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention
GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar)."

let's not forget the LGPL is itself copyrighted...


> If there's any question of legality, it would probably fall in his
> favor.

well, we also have the right to license our work under a different
license according to the "GNU Lesser General Public
License" terms of use (of which Tuomo's terms are in direct violation
of)

just my tupe

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

M Rawash wrote:  [Fri Apr 09 2010, 07:35:03PM EDT]
>> Agreed! (or some clarifications from Tuomo, but doesn't seem to be very responsive)
>
>I'd say screw it, let him sue, he doesn't have any legal grounds (saying
>"section 'x' is void" does not automagically make it so)

IANAL, but I think you might be wrong. It's his copyright and his
license based on the LGPL. The LGPL holds no magical powers to
force people to use it unmodified. If there's any question of
legality, it would probably fall in his favor.

Aron

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 00:57 +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote:
> >> Couple questions:
> >> 1. Are we basing the fork on ion-3 stable, and not the development branch (ion-3plus)?
> >> I'm not really sure how much differences there is, but are there reasons not to base it on the development branch? (ion-3plus seems quite stable to me)
> >
> > ion-3plus does not include libtu and libextl, which means they need to
> > be compiled separately before you can compile notion. ion-3 resembles
> > more what what notion should look like when it's released, and we can
> > always add ion-3plus' changes later.
> 
> Well, I'd say it's easier (not any job at all really) to add libtu and
> libextl to ion-3plus than backporting the changes from ion-3plus
> later. (I guess that would involve more license complications too?)

the separate libtu and libextl are missing their makefiles, and
considering that all the work can be done with one patch application,
i'd say it's about the same, also both versions have the same licence so
i wouldn't worry about complications.

> >> 2. Do you have the darcs repo for the stable branch? (ion-3)
> >
> > all the ion3-related code is available here: http://github.com/gwash
> 
> But that doesn't contain the darcs repo? (_darcs folder) If we had the repo for both branches it would be easier to see the differences.

sure, but nothing that diff can't do...

> > we need a lawyer!
> 
> Agreed! (or some clarifications from Tuomo, but doesn't seem to be very responsive)

I'd say screw it, let him sue, he doesn't have any legal grounds (saying
"section 'x' is void" does not automagically make it so)


M Rawash

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

>> Couple questions:
>> 1. Are we basing the fork on ion-3 stable, and not the development branch (ion-3plus)?
>> I'm not really sure how much differences there is, but are there reasons not to base it on the development branch? (ion-3plus seems quite stable to me)
>
> ion-3plus does not include libtu and libextl, which means they need to
> be compiled separately before you can compile notion. ion-3 resembles
> more what what notion should look like when it's released, and we can
> always add ion-3plus' changes later.

Well, I'd say it's easier (not any job at all really) to add libtu and libextl to ion-3plus than backporting the changes from ion-3plus later. (I guess that would involve more license complications too?)

>> 2. Do you have the darcs repo for the stable branch? (ion-3)
>
> all the ion3-related code is available here: http://github.com/gwash

But that doesn't contain the darcs repo? (_darcs folder) If we had the repo for both branches it would be easier to see the differences.

> we need a lawyer!

Agreed! (or some clarifications from Tuomo, but doesn't seem to be very responsive)

- Ole Jørgen Brønner

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 23:54 +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:52:56 +0200, Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> wrote:
> 
> > Grab it while it's hot: https://sourceforge.net/downloads/notion/notion-20100409.tar.gz
> 
> Wow, lots of things have happened. Nice that someone does something.
> 
> Couple questions:
> 1. Are we basing the fork on ion-3 stable, and not the development branch (ion-3plus)?
> I'm not really sure how much differences there is, but are there reasons not to base it on the development branch? (ion-3plus seems quite stable to me)

ion-3plus does not include libtu and libextl, which means they need to
be compiled separately before you can compile notion. ion-3 resembles
more what what notion should look like when it's released, and we can
always add ion-3plus' changes later.

> 2. Do you have the darcs repo for the stable branch? (ion-3)

all the ion3-related code is available here: http://github.com/gwash

> 3. Are we sure we can remove the preamble from the license in the fork? (https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2010-April/001880.html)

I'm no longer sure, i thought that the preamble could be removed if we
satisfied all of Tuomo's conditions, but then i noticed this:

"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."

wtf? can he even do that? it's obviously in violation of LGPL's Section
3 and 13:

"[...] Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for
that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to ___all
subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.___"

"[...] If the Library specifies a version number of this License which
applies to it and ___"any later version"___, you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
later version published by the Free Software Foundation."

we need a lawyer!


M Rawash

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda (OT)

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

Wtf.. ads in the mailing list.. I vote for not using sourceforge

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:52:56 +0200, Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> wrote:

> Grab it while it's hot: https://sourceforge.net/downloads/notion/notion-20100409.tar.gz

Wow, lots of things have happened. Nice that someone does something.

Couple questions:
1. Are we basing the fork on ion-3 stable, and not the development branch (ion-3plus)?
I'm not really sure how much differences there is, but are there reasons not to base it on the development branch? (ion-3plus seems quite stable to me)

2. Do you have the darcs repo for the stable branch? (ion-3)

3. Are we sure we can remove the preamble from the license in the fork? (https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2010-April/001880.html)


I will try to put together a draft for a contribution/code guide this weekend.


- Ole Jørgen Brønner

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:07 +0200, Alexander Rink wrote:
> For your convenience (if you are an archlinux user like me), heres the PKGBUILD
> 
> Alex

i had to add this line at the end:

find $pkgdir -iname pwm3* -exec "rm" {} +

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:59 +0200, M Rawash wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:37 +0200, M Rawash wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:38 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On 2010-04-09 22:17, Alexander Rink wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:01 +0200
> > > > Olof Johansson <zi...@et...> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > PS. I hate sourceforge
> > > > 
> > > > any better suggestion than sourceforge?
> > > 
> > > Setting up own hosting is not that hard (mailman, git and a 
> > > webserver); otherwise, savannah[0] is perhaps a bit less gruesome.
> > 
> > IIRC, someone offered to host these stuff for us, can't remember who,
> > will dig into the archives.
> 
> it was Klaus Umbach:
> https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2010-April/001822.html
> 
> he doesn't seem to have said much later, so i'm not sure if the offer
> stands...
> 
btw, i don't think we should be thinking about moving before we settle
on a name (or is "notion" final?)

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:50 +0200, Alexander Rink wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:37:35 +0200
> M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:38 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On 2010-04-09 22:17, Alexander Rink wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:01 +0200
> > > > Olof Johansson <zi...@et...> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > PS. I hate sourceforge
> > > > 
> > > > any better suggestion than sourceforge?
> > > 
> > > Setting up own hosting is not that hard (mailman, git and a 
> > > webserver); otherwise, savannah[0] is perhaps a bit less gruesome.
> > 
> > IIRC, someone offered to host these stuff for us, can't remember who,
> > will dig into the archives.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> What about the staffing of this "project"? Do we have any volunteers?
> 
well, i guess this should be next on the agenda, how do you reckon it
should be decided? 

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:37 +0200, M Rawash wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:38 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On 2010-04-09 22:17, Alexander Rink wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:01 +0200
> > > Olof Johansson <zi...@et...> wrote:
> 
> > > > PS. I hate sourceforge
> > > 
> > > any better suggestion than sourceforge?
> > 
> > Setting up own hosting is not that hard (mailman, git and a 
> > webserver); otherwise, savannah[0] is perhaps a bit less gruesome.
> 
> IIRC, someone offered to host these stuff for us, can't remember who,
> will dig into the archives.

it was Klaus Umbach:
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2010-April/001822.html

he doesn't seem to have said much later, so i'm not sure if the offer
stands...

M Rawash

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

[Alexander R. <a....@gm...>]

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:37:35 +0200
M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:38 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On 2010-04-09 22:17, Alexander Rink wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:01 +0200
> > > Olof Johansson <zi...@et...> wrote:
> 
> > > > PS. I hate sourceforge
> > > 
> > > any better suggestion than sourceforge?
> > 
> > Setting up own hosting is not that hard (mailman, git and a 
> > webserver); otherwise, savannah[0] is perhaps a bit less gruesome.
> 
> IIRC, someone offered to host these stuff for us, can't remember who,
> will dig into the archives.

Sounds good.

What about the staffing of this "project"? Do we have any volunteers?

-- 
Alexander Rink <a....@gm...>

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:38 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On 2010-04-09 22:17, Alexander Rink wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:01 +0200
> > Olof Johansson <zi...@et...> wrote:

> > > PS. I hate sourceforge
> > 
> > any better suggestion than sourceforge?
> 
> Setting up own hosting is not that hard (mailman, git and a 
> webserver); otherwise, savannah[0] is perhaps a bit less gruesome.

IIRC, someone offered to host these stuff for us, can't remember who,
will dig into the archives.

Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

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

On 2010-04-09 22:17, Alexander Rink wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:01 +0200
> Olof Johansson <zi...@et...> wrote:
> 
> > On 2010-04-09 21:52, Alexander Rink wrote:
> > From README: "notion was written by Tuomo Valkonen." Documentation 
> > can definetly not be solved by s/ion/notion/g.
> 
> it was a little bit more complicated than just s/ion/notion/g :P

Heh, ok.. But the README should state something like "notion is based
on ion, which was written by Tuomo Valkonen." Just saying that
replacing the name ion isn't trivial as all occurences shouldn't be
replaced.

> > PS. I hate sourceforge
> 
> any better suggestion than sourceforge?

Setting up own hosting is not that hard (mailman, git and a 
webserver); otherwise, savannah[0] is perhaps a bit less gruesome.

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