Re: [Gforge-devel] gforge

[Mathieu Roy]

> > This issue mentionned need to be fixed as soon as possible: Tim said
> > he'll handle it, so it's fine, there's no particular need for
> > defence.
> 
> I think there was need for defense when a statement such as this one
> you made is said so quickly.
> 
> "Please, conform to our policy or we would be forced to deactivate your
> project."
> 
> This is very abrupt and aggressive. Its not in the language of someone
> trying to help come up with a solution. It is better to try and work
> with people. Maybe something like
> 
> "Lets just try and resolve this issue soon, so that we can keep
> consistant with FSF policy and be able to continue to have gForge
> hosted on Savannah."
> 
> Statements telling people to "conform" are not well taken. We are in
> large part a group of rebels. We dont like to "conform" to the rules
> of the proprietary world, and I will not "conform" to a Free
> Software world when told to either. I will follow Free Software
> principles because its my choice, not because I am ever forced to
> "conform".

Savannah is not anarchy, there are rules. But these rules are pretty
basic and are not oppressive, IMHO. If people think so, Savannah is
not a good choice for them.

This license/copyright note is an important point we check at any
registration. You can get many informations about that on Savannah.

It's one of the rules of Savannah - but in fact, it depends on
copyright's rules in themselves. Software is not really free until
it is possible to defend its freedom in court, until we can easily
identify licenses to apply. 

Jaime Villate told to Time that he 
        "should add copying permission
        statements to every php script as explained in
        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
        It is important that you do those changes to avoid possible
        legal issues with gforge."
when he registered the project.
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2002-12/msg00596.html

This morning (in France), when I sent the mail, nothing was done about
it: after the information, the next step is the "threat" (well, a monstruous 
exaggeration). The last step is project account suppression.

It's pretty easy to understand:
        - first we explain the rules we expect users to follow
        - secondly, if they do not follow them we explain what would
          be the obvious consequences if it does not change
        - finally, if users do not agree to follow the rules, they
          cannot belong here and the mutual agreement is over.

We never reached the last step and I hope we never will. But it's
clear that we cannot re-tell thousand times the same things. It's up
to users. No big deal.

Tim agreed to take care of the problem reported so the whole issue is
now over. That's why I said that there no need for defence. We can
discuss about the better way to send a message for ever but finally I
think that my message was effecient. :))

Regards,


-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
 << Profile  << http://savannah.gnu.org/users/yeupou <<
 >> Homepage >> http://yeupou.coleumes.org           >>
 << GPG Key  << http://stock.coleumes.org/gpg        <<