121–130 of 240 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the courts have already handled cases around the GPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Leg...
These are about violation of GPL, none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base. Show me better examples.
Isn't that what actually happened in the GPL-Violations.org project with netfilter?
So happy to read that they are leaving GNU, since presumably that means that the project is ditching the GPL license. Perhaps this will be the first event in a chain reaction of ditching GPL.
> > As you know, I will not assign my copyright to the FSF, nor to
> > anyone else. All the code I write is GPL'ed. You don't need to
> > own the copyright on any code in order to be able to enforce the
> > GPL. [...]
>
> Indeed, and in fact for a long time the copyright was owned by me
> before it was assigned to the FSF. It's not required per se, but
> generally speaking, there must be a Maintainer of the Software who
> believes in the ideals of the GNU system
I do believe in the ideal of the GNU system: to have computer systems
that consist entirely of libre software.
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
Right, it's just that all the new revisions of Nano that anyone will use going forward have left GNU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are about violation of GPL, none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base. Show me better examples.
> none of the suits was filed by individual developer who was contributing to the code base Isn't that what actually happened in the GPL-Violations.org project with netfilter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use nano, because I didn't "get" Vim.
I hate to admit it, but that's more or less why I do as well. It's not that I don't get ViM, it's just that I don't like it. I have TRIED to force myself to use it. Something about that long reach for the Esc key? I don't know what it is really, but I just never felt comfortable using it. Emacs is such a huge monster of a program. 90% of what it does I never touch. Most of the time I just need to edit a conf file and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know anything about the politics involved, and I don't even use nano (vim guy myself), but I just ran this out of curiosity: zx2c4@thinkpad ~/nano $ git shortlog -sne --since '3 years ago' 1298 Benno Schulenberg 64 Chris Allegretta 6 Jordi Mallach 3 Mike Frysinger 3 Mike Scalora 2 Rishabh Dave Seems like Benno is clearly the driving force behind the project.
Was it really necessary to also publish their email addresses? -- Edit: I know the addresses appear in the Git repo. But they are not accessible to web crawlers over HTTP. Most code hosting services require a login to see them as a spam control measure. Which is also why I think they should be obfuscated at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use nano, because I didn't "get" Vim.
I hate to admit it, but that's more or less why I do as well. It's not that I don't get ViM, it's just that I don't like it. I have TRIED to force myself to use it. Something about that long reach for the Esc key? I don't know what it is really, but I just never felt comfortable using it. Emacs is such a huge monster of a program. 90% of what it does I never touch. Most of the time I just need to edit a conf file and…
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
That you intend to continue having a "GNU nano" doesn't change that. Just because it happened to be on your web space doesn't make it your project.
A project is first and foremost the people behind it. Not a hosting provider.
I consider you the fork. Without hostility.
Edit: I may have missed/confused the acting people here. I'm not sure anymore if my comment above really hits the nail on its head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if a or the driving force of a project takes things elsewhere, the users will eventually follow. If the disagreement was over GNU's insistence to require assigning copyright to the FSF, then I can fully understand the reluctance. It's the same reason many contributors cannot officially submit patches to side projects of Google employees, Ubuntu projects, etc.
Do you know that according to copy rights, open source projects are mess. Nobody tried it in the court, but if some developer contributing to project went to court saying "This part of code is mine, I don't want it to be modified by other people", then the project could be in trouble. Nobody tried that (yet). That's why some OS projects require signing Developer Certificates of Origin etc.