Re: [Savannah-hackers] Re: [Gforge-devel] gforge

[James Michael DuPont]

 --- Tim Perdue <address@hidden> schrieb: > Dan Kuykendall wrote:

> Thank you. Yes, this was a misunderstanding.

Then I have to apologise to you, in public. In any case, I have every
reason to be vocal about these issues, and mean no personal grief to
you at all. 

At no time have I insulted you as a person, 
in fact, I have respect for you, for the good things that you are doing
for sourceforge, and for your endeavor to make money with it.

Only the way that you are doing it needs revising. I have only pointed
out questionable actions, and have informed you that they are not in
line with what I know about. Others agree. 

I find that license changes of project should be discussed with all
parties involved.  

If someone just looks at the project, they see GPL on the savannah
page, and then they download links to non-free code (jpgraph) and see
someone trying to re-license the project, how should they react?

Don't I have the ethical responsibility as someone who accepts the
debian socal contract, the ACM code of ethics, the GNU manifesto, to
shout out and say "WTF!!?!"

> Before I mentioned my 
> reporting piece publicly, I talked to Bruce Perens on the telephone
> and 
> he said it should not be a problem as long as we are pursuing 
> "releasing" it from "hostage" status with certain things we are doing
> behind the scenes. Bruce is trying to "sell" gforge and other OSS 
> services to large corporations and there are various things going on 
> around this effort. A small "hostage fee" from a major corporation is
> peanuts to them.

The ransom model is great, and there is also a ransom license from a
very bright young man, Adam theo, who I have much respect for.
http://www.theoretic.com/Ransom/Home

I would publically support your efforts to make a sourceforge project
under the Ransom model, when it would be turned into GPL at a later
stage. Please do so. You can even create a derived work, but not in the
same publically accessable cvs. 

The thing about hostages is this :
you cannot put the onto a public cvs. If you want to make a hostage,
then you need to hide them from the anti-terror squad. You cannot mix a
CVS with GPL and Ransom code.

If you want to do this right, setup a new project, put it under the
Ransom license, and dont allow access to the sourcecode to people who
dont aggree to it. As soon as a user sees the ransomed source, they are
in a moral dillemma. Do they say : oh that is silly, I can do that! and
if they do, they have seen your code. Or do they say, oh wow, I need
that. Or do they say, WTF?! why is this code with a different license
in a GPLEd repository.

> 
> I definitely feel burned on this - I don't think I have any energy to
> pursue future development on this at all. 

> I'm really put off by this 
> vicious attitude, especially from JM Dupont.

I dont think you need to get personal here, I have nothing against you
at all. If you make yourself out to be a victim of an unwarrented
attack, I ask you what have I done to make you think that? Is pointed
out a possible error so bad? What if it were to go unnoticed?

What if others followed you in this relicensing effort of sourceforge,
would not the pain be much greater in the end?

mike

=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de