Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nano is no longer a GNU project

nano-editor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 240 posts

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#201

Post by tptacek »

nailer wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pico was certainly open source; it was part of PINE, one of the older and more popular Unix mail programs.

Pine wasn't open source either. That's why the Linux distros couldn't include it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_(email_client) "The University of Washington later modified their license somewhat to allow unmodified distribution of Pine alongside collections of free software, but the license still does not conform to the Open Source and the Free Software Guidelines so it is semi-free software, effectively pr…

A-ha. Thanks, that makes sense.

I was just having a hard time getting past the idea that I'd never have had PINE working if I didn't have the source. :)

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#202

Post by sudhirkhanger »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #108
zx2c4 wrote: post #104

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.

With a record like that I think he should be allowed to do whatever he pleases with the project.

I think he should have renamed the project when he forked it. This sounds disingenuous to me.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#203

Post by Annatar »

davexunit wrote: post #88
Annatar wrote: post #84

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.

(Accidentally upvoted this crappy post.) No, the project cannot just ditch the license that all of the code has been contributed under. It's still GPL. Your anti-GPL fervor will have to rest for awhile longer.

People (like for example Joerg Schilling) have re-licensed their work in the past not to be under the GPL any more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools#License_compatibility...

From the article, but this is also common knowledge:

As is common with the GPL and other open source licenses, very little case law exists to provide guidance to users and provide a definitive answer on whether binary versions are distributable.

And further:

Joerg Schilling continues to develop his version of cdrtools under the CDDL and GPL (mkisofs) licenses, whereas the cdrkit fork has received next to no updates since.

Good for him.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#204

Post by EmanueleAina »

gravypod wrote: post #195
ArneBab wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so. With that argument, anyone could take over any project just because he/she has more free time than the current maintainer. Would you want someone who steps up and does a lot of work in a project you started to suddenly tell you that he/she will now change the vision of the project and turn it in ways you don’t like? Let’s assume that you take your time to write clean code, do changes slowly and deli…

Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. I don't think Linus would object to someone replacing him if anyone was more qualified for the job. Hell he even openly encourages people to fork Linux, make improvements, and follow the license (copy left). I see nothing wrong with the most active/best maintainer having say over the project's future.

Arguably, if the situation is the one described, I'm not sure what "the best maintainer" is. :(

Changing name and leaving the old project eventually die or be subsumed by the fork (like egcs did with gcc) would have probably been a better choice.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#205

Post by thomasahle »

nnutter wrote: post #73
thomasahle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if the maintainer wants to change the license (Like GPL2 -> GPL3). That's only possible if the contributors have signed over copyright, or the maintainer can track down every person who ever sent a patch, and get them to agree.

I don't think GPL2 -> GPL3 is a valid example of that. Usually it is to dual-license with a non-open-source license or some other incompatible open-source licenses. The GPL "upgrade" clause, > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program 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 t…

It's possible that this has been 'fixed' with GPL3. I just know Linus used it as a reason not to change the license of the Linux kernel.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#206

Post by tomcam »

zx2c4 wrote: post #104
mikegerwitz wrote: post #43

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 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.

Snap

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#207

Post by luckydude »

zx2c4 wrote: post #104
mikegerwitz wrote: post #43

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 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.

2 orders of magnitude more commits? Yes, agree. And the argument that claims "a flurry of activity" doesn't wash. This is a bit more than a flurry.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#208

Post by wott »

gravypod wrote: post #195
ArneBab wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so. With that argument, anyone could take over any project just because he/she has more free time than the current maintainer. Would you want someone who steps up and does a lot of work in a project you started to suddenly tell you that he/she will now change the vision of the project and turn it in ways you don’t like? Let’s assume that you take your time to write clean code, do changes slowly and deli…

Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. I don't think Linus would object to someone replacing him if anyone was more qualified for the job. Hell he even openly encourages people to fork Linux, make improvements, and follow the license (copy left). I see nothing wrong with the most active/best maintainer having say over the project's future.

> Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge.

There is no reason why the first sentence should imply the second.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#209

Post by sangnoir »

gravypod wrote: post #195
ArneBab wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so. With that argument, anyone could take over any project just because he/she has more free time than the current maintainer. Would you want someone who steps up and does a lot of work in a project you started to suddenly tell you that he/she will now change the vision of the project and turn it in ways you don’t like? Let’s assume that you take your time to write clean code, do changes slowly and deli…

Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge. I don't think Linus would object to someone replacing him if anyone was more qualified for the job. Hell he even openly encourages people to fork Linux, make improvements, and follow the license (copy left). I see nothing wrong with the most active/best maintainer having say over the project's future.

> Isn't that the idea of open source software? The best maintainer is the one in charge.

No, not really. Open source embraces the idea of forking - a hostile take over of the original project is most definitely not the idea - but it can be allowed depending on the projects charter.

Also - most active contribute =/= maintainer - I'm sure Red Hat adds more code to the kernel than Linus these days, but Linus is still the 'decider'.

To conclude, Benno is free to fork GNU Nano, but it will not be GNU Nano - he can call it 'New Nano' if he likes.

Re: Nano is no longer a GNU project

#210

Post by timv »

cm3 wrote: post #142
ArneBab wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the current maintainer who wants copyright assignment. He does not want to hand over the project to someone who refuses to lead it in a way consistent with his vision. Rather walk more slowly than walk in the wrong direction.

Isn't that even worse then? I mean, the FSF has a good track record and less people would object to assigning copyright over to the org.

As far as I can tell, the current maintainer wants copyright assigned to the FSF. He is not willing to hand the project over to someone who isn't willing to do that.

The proposed new maintainer is not willing to assign copyright to the FSF, and so seems to be forking the project instead.

But it's not 100% clear exactly what's going on.

Post reply on HN