?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Just to clear things concerning visions's post. - LiveJournal Client Discussions [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LiveJournal Client Discussions

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Just to clear things concerning visions's post. [Dec. 14th, 2001|12:16 pm]
LiveJournal Client Discussions

lj_clients

[sema]

  • Undoubtedly, anyone can use source code of my client by all means, according to GPL.

  • Anyone is welcome to send me patches with new features/fixes, they will most likely be integrated (and of course author will be listed as contributor). visions don't want to integrate his code (spellchecker?) to my branch - it's his own choice, no problem on my part.

  • I do not want to set up CVS just because it's not convenient for me. It's my problem - to integrate exterior changes.

  • Just to let you know - there are a lot of small changes/fixes (except for the major ones like layout) in source since official 1.4.7. I do not recommend to integrate only some changes, you'd better branch my current state, but.. again, judge yourself.

linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: visions
2001-12-19 06:57 am (UTC)
the license states that only binary the license holder for the spellchecking component may produce binary builds. that is the issue with it. it is also not a GPL friendly license.

in regards to me sending patches, that is backwards.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: grahams
2001-12-19 02:31 pm (UTC)
in regards to me sending patches, that is backwards.

Why is it backwards? Many projects, including open source ones, require that the contributors submit patches to the maintainers..

I maintain the code for my client, alivejournal in a closed Perforce depot, but I more than happily accept patches... If anyone became a regular contributor (which doesn't happen), I would happily give them submit access to the repo.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: visions
2001-12-19 08:04 pm (UTC)
yes, contributors to the maintainers... not original authors to derived projects.

re-read what i stated... me sending patches to him is backwards since i have the license.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: grahams
2001-12-19 08:36 pm (UTC)
re-read what i stated... me sending patches to him is backwards since i have the license.

No, I still disagree with you... He can do whatever he wants with your code, as long as it is open sourced.. He had every right to fork, especially once you, apparently, stopped maintaining the project... But even if you didn't stop maintaining, he still had the right to fork and create a completely independent project from yours... And by doing that, he has every right to say "and you can send patches to me"... Whether or not you want to do that is regardless... It isn't backwards...

If I started waffling on Alivejournal, and someone said "Hey buddy, forget you, i'm not waiting around" and forked the project (as I did when Simon Huet apparently stopped working on the previous Be LJ client), when I returned to the project, I wouldn't expect them to submit all the changes they had made to my code while I was gone... If I wanted to incorporate their work into mine, I would grab their source and do the work myself.

Your rights as an "original author" under the GPL really aren't that much more than the rights of everyone else... About the only thing you can do is multiply license your code, or change your mind about your license (move away from the GPL for future versions, as long as you get permission from anyone who contributed patches). The fact that you (apparently) stopped working on (or at least stopped releasing) the project means that someone could have/should have taken the reigns... The person who picked up where you left off has every right to be indifferent to your returned interest in the project.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: visions
2001-12-19 08:49 pm (UTC)
yes, but i have the license to the spellchecker, which is what i meant. i wasnt referencing the gpl.

in regards to me sending him patches, that would require dual development, and that isnt something that i plan on doing. as for submitted patches, there have been none. avva forked off my branch, i backported some of his changes. there was a suggested patch for some changes to how the spell checker was checking, but those changes were done manually.

a "contributer" doesn't have to be consulted either unless they make a large contribution to the project. the original authors still hold all license rights.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: grahams
2001-12-19 10:38 pm (UTC)
in regards to me sending him patches, that would require dual development, and that isnt something that i plan on doing. as for submitted patches, there have been none. avva forked off my branch, i backported some of his changes. there was a suggested patch for some changes to how the spell checker was checking, but those changes were done manually.

But you can't do anything to prevent dual development. Once you release your code under the GPL, you can't "take it back"... It is in the wild, and anything can happen with it. If sema doesn't want to cooperate with you, doesn't want to submit patches to you, he doesn't have to. All he has to do is continue to abide by the requirements of the original license.. In turn, he can request patches be submitted to him for additions to his client, and if you choose to ignore those requests that's your right.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)