Menu
▾
▴
notion-devel
|
From: Juri H. <ju...@fa...> - 2010-04-09 09:25:44
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 03:36:25 +0200, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote: > well, i was going to post this on the notion-general ML, but since this > one got more subscribers so far, i guess i'll post it here.. > > first off, let me be clear, i'm not planing on taking over the > development/management of this fork in any way, shape or form, my only > ambition was to kick start this project so we can continue > developing/using ion without having to confine ourselves to someone > else's idea of a good window manager, and of course, because Tuomo, > being Tuomo, have taken Ion's website off the web, rendering it > officially dead! > > now, i think, we should start the development discussion right away, and > here's what i suggest should be on the agenda for the coming days: > (sorted by priority) > > - reaching a consensus on the name (not very important actually, but i > think it should be the first step) > - discuss the legal issues (regarding the LGPLv2 & Tuomo's TM claims) > - management & job assignment (who does what?) > - initial commit > - direction/goals > - contribution methods (how do we expect people to contribute?) > - website design/content/facilities/etc... > - first release > - publicity > > please add your suggestions/remarks... > > regards, > M Rawash > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 I would strike the name (who cares about names?) and do an initial commit first. The question is, wether the commit should be "cleaned" (eliminate occurences of "ion", substitute with "notion") or not. If we do _not_ clean the initial commit, we are definitely not allowed to distribute it (or offer public checkout until it is "cleaned"). I think, job assignment will be easier after we will see who is actually _able_ to spend time and contribute code, ideas, etc. You won't be happy in wasting your time assigning some important roles to anyone whose experience is just some "hello world" code. Greetings -- Juri Hamburg |
|
From: kevin g. <kev...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 13:47:01
|
Greetings all, The way forward I see for license compliance is this: 1. We import the existing code into the repository. (at this point we are compliant as we are distributing the code "as-is") 2a. We go on a renaming spree, the extent of which is up to debate. (compliant as we still haven't violated any of the "special clauses") 2b. (possibly in parallel with 2a) General inoffensive cleanup, "make it build" (still compliant with "special clauses") 3. Once we have done all necessary renaming, etc... we can proceed with a clean conscience to making changes that Tuomo would object to, since we have met the alternative option in the "special clauses". Are there any holes in my reasoning? This scenario lets us import the code immediately and get on with it, and still allows some breathing room during "phase 2" to come to consensus about just how much changes need to be made to the code in order to say that we are clear of the special requirements. This scenario is important to me, as 2b is actually my priority. I don't feel the lack of features that Tuomo didn't add, but I DO want to ensure the stability and availability of this WM in the future. Thanks for moving forward on this, I just want my favorite WM to remain available, Kevin Granade |
|
From: Jeff M. <j...@co...> - 2010-04-09 15:31:25
|
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 09:46, kevin granade <kev...@gm...> wrote: > Greetings all, > > The way forward I see for license compliance is this: > 1. We import the existing code into the repository. (at this point we > are compliant as we are distributing the code "as-is") > 2a. We go on a renaming spree, the extent of which is up to debate. > (compliant as we still haven't violated any of the "special clauses") > 2b. (possibly in parallel with 2a) General inoffensive cleanup, "make > it build" (still compliant with "special clauses") I agree completely with getting some kind of github/gitorious going, and people (like me) who are experienced but don't have the time to just do renaming alone, can start contributing, and submitting name change after name change. I don't think we'll be able to go forward with a "notion" of a new ion if we don't first obey Tuomo's licensing. |
|
From: Alexander R. <a....@gm...> - 2010-04-09 17:45:59
|
Im currently in the process of refactoring the code, expect a result in a few hours. I really need some quality assurance than. Alex On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:31:01 -0400 Jeff Mickey <j...@co...> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 09:46, kevin granade <kev...@gm...> wrote: > > Greetings all, > > > > The way forward I see for license compliance is this: > > 1. We import the existing code into the repository. (at this point we > > are compliant as we are distributing the code "as-is") > > 2a. We go on a renaming spree, the extent of which is up to debate. > > (compliant as we still haven't violated any of the "special clauses") > > 2b. (possibly in parallel with 2a) General inoffensive cleanup, "make > > it build" (still compliant with "special clauses") > > I agree completely with getting some kind of github/gitorious going, > and people (like me) who are experienced but don't have the time to > just do renaming alone, can start contributing, and submitting name > change after name change. I don't think we'll be able to go forward > with a "notion" of a new ion if we don't first obey Tuomo's licensing. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 -- Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> |
|
From: Alexander R. <a....@gm...> - 2010-04-09 19:53:00
|
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: > Im currently in the process of refactoring the code, expect a result in a few hours. I really need some quality assurance than. > > Alex > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:31:01 -0400 > Jeff Mickey <j...@co...> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 09:46, kevin granade <kev...@gm...> wrote: > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > The way forward I see for license compliance is this: > > > 1. We import the existing code into the repository. (at this point we > > > are compliant as we are distributing the code "as-is") > > > 2a. We go on a renaming spree, the extent of which is up to debate. > > > (compliant as we still haven't violated any of the "special clauses") > > > 2b. (possibly in parallel with 2a) General inoffensive cleanup, "make > > > it build" (still compliant with "special clauses") > > > > I agree completely with getting some kind of github/gitorious going, > > and people (like me) who are experienced but don't have the time to > > just do renaming alone, can start contributing, and submitting name > > change after name change. I don't think we'll be able to go forward > > with a "notion" of a new ion if we don't first obey Tuomo's licensing. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > > -- > Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 -- Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> |
|
From: Alexander R. <a....@gm...> - 2010-04-09 20:07:34
|
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: > > > Im currently in the process of refactoring the code, expect a result in a few hours. I really need some quality assurance than. > > > > Alex > > > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:31:01 -0400 > > Jeff Mickey <j...@co...> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 09:46, kevin granade <kev...@gm...> wrote: > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > The way forward I see for license compliance is this: > > > > 1. We import the existing code into the repository. (at this point we > > > > are compliant as we are distributing the code "as-is") > > > > 2a. We go on a renaming spree, the extent of which is up to debate. > > > > (compliant as we still haven't violated any of the "special clauses") > > > > 2b. (possibly in parallel with 2a) General inoffensive cleanup, "make > > > > it build" (still compliant with "special clauses") > > > > > > I agree completely with getting some kind of github/gitorious going, > > > and people (like me) who are experienced but don't have the time to > > > just do renaming alone, can start contributing, and submitting name > > > change after name change. I don't think we'll be able to go forward > > > with a "notion" of a new ion if we don't first obey Tuomo's licensing. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > > -- > Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> -- Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 21:31:57
|
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" {} +
|
|
From: Juri H. <ju...@fa...> - 2010-04-09 15:33:53
|
On 09/04/10 15:46, kevin granade wrote: > Greetings all, > > The way forward I see for license compliance is this: > 1. We import the existing code into the repository. (at this point we > are compliant as we are distributing the code "as-is") > 2a. We go on a renaming spree, the extent of which is up to debate. > (compliant as we still haven't violated any of the "special clauses") > 2b. (possibly in parallel with 2a) General inoffensive cleanup, "make > it build" (still compliant with "special clauses") > 3. Once we have done all necessary renaming, etc... we can proceed > with a clean conscience to making changes that Tuomo would object to, > since we have met the alternative option in the "special clauses". > > Are there any holes in my reasoning? This scenario lets us import the > code immediately and get on with it, and still allows some breathing > room during "phase 2" to come to consensus about just how much changes > need to be made to the code in order to say that we are clear of the > special requirements. > > This scenario is important to me, as 2b is actually my priority. I > don't feel the lack of features that Tuomo didn't add, but I DO want > to ensure the stability and availability of this WM in the future. > > Thanks for moving forward on this, I just want my favorite WM to > remain available, > Kevin Granade > Do we violate any terms by renaming the project while still having "ion" executables? If not, then seems that your scenario fits well. Juri Hamburg |
|
From: Aron G. <agr...@n0...> - 2010-04-09 16:12:50
|
[resend using the address I'd prefer on the list] kevin granade wrote: [Fri Apr 09 2010, 09:46:51AM EDT] >The way forward I see for license compliance is this: >1. We import the existing code into the repository. (at this point we >are compliant as we are distributing the code "as-is") >2a. We go on a renaming spree, the extent of which is up to debate. >(compliant as we still haven't violated any of the "special clauses") >2b. (possibly in parallel with 2a) General inoffensive cleanup, "make >it build" (still compliant with "special clauses") >3. Once we have done all necessary renaming, etc... we can proceed >with a clean conscience to making changes that Tuomo would object to, >since we have met the alternative option in the "special clauses". This would be my preferred approach. I would like to have a full record of the rename in the repo. Worst case: Tuomo doesn't like it and complains, and we rebuild the repo to get rid of the initial revisions. I think it's an acceptable risk because I don't personally think Tuomo is going to go that far. Aron |
|
From: Olof J. <zi...@et...> - 2010-04-09 20:07:14
|
On 2010-04-09 21:52, Alexander Rink wrote: > 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. From README: "notion was written by Tuomo Valkonen." Documentation can definetly not be solved by s/ion/notion/g. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 PS. I hate sourceforge -- Olof Johansson jabber: ol...@et... irc: zibri on Freenode, OFTC uri: http://www.stdlib.se/ |
|
From: Alexander R. <a....@gm...> - 2010-04-09 20:17:46
|
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:07:01 +0200 Olof Johansson <zi...@et...> wrote: > On 2010-04-09 21:52, Alexander Rink wrote: > > 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. > > 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 > PS. I hate sourceforge any better suggestion than sourceforge? -- Alexander Rink <a....@gm...> |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 20:27:43
|
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:17 +0200, 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: > > > 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. > > > > 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 only a few other things, pwm3 should either be renamed or removed/not-built altogether, and you forgot to remove Tuomo's TM preamble, otherwise good job! it only needs a few more superficial changes and this could be our initial commit. > > PS. I hate sourceforge > > any better suggestion than sourceforge? > well? |
|
From: Olof J. <zi...@et...> - 2010-04-09 20:39:03
|
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/ |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 20:44:37
|
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. |
|
From: Alexander R. <a....@gm...> - 2010-04-09 20:50:13
|
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...> |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 21:11:09
|
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? |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 21:06:03
|
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 |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 21:30:06
|
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?) |
|
From: Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...> - 2010-04-09 21:54:23
|
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 |
|
From: Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...> - 2010-04-09 22:02:40
|
Wtf.. ads in the mailing list.. I vote for not using sourceforge |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 22:42:26
|
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 |
|
From: Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...> - 2010-04-09 22:57:27
|
>> 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 |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-09 23:42:06
|
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 |
|
From: Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...> - 2010-04-10 04:15:02
Attachments:
new-changes-in-ion-3plus.txt
|
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 |
|
From: Aron G. <agr...@n0...> - 2010-04-10 02:16:44
|
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 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X