Re: Conditional configuration
Hello David, On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:51:46PM -0800, David Champion wrote: > * On 29 Jan 2016, martin f krafft wrote: > > > > It's a shame to hear that Karel doesn't do his work within the > > community. mutt-kz is a nice piece of work and why not provide an > > officially experimental mutt? > > I wonder, too, why he works entirely separately. I wish he were feeding > back to the community but he seems more interested in maintaining a > separate fork, and letting us worry about following/backporting his > work. It is not a shame. It is a feaute. Mutt is published and distributed by the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, which means there can be 100 forks, not just one, for any purpose, by anyone and that shall not be invalidated anyhow. Software produced under this license is freely available and any source code could be merged and used in the original Mutt. So, whoever is producing the fork, DOES work with the community within the scope of the GNU GPL. Rosario
Re: Conditional configuration
* On 29 Jan 2016, mutt-us...@rcdrun.com wrote: > > So, whoever is producing the fork, DOES work with the community within > the scope of the GNU GPL. Working within a development community and keeping the terms of a license are disjoint. Doing one gains you no ground on the other. mutt-kz keeps the license. It does not work with the greater mutt community. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Conditional configuration
Hello, I don't understand why be jealous on something that has been clearly worked out in the licence itself. I don't know who is that man, but speak to him. Don't blame people for doing something that was intended to do in the first place. It was intention that everyone can make a fork and do what they want. So don't stamp on the freedom of software and GNU GPL, as there is just nothing written about the "Community" in the licence. Not even the word "community" is there. On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:13:52PM -0800, David Champion wrote: > * On 29 Jan 2016, mutt-us...@rcdrun.com wrote: > > > > So, whoever is producing the fork, DOES work with the community within > > the scope of the GNU GPL. > > Working within a development community and keeping the terms of a > license are disjoint. Doing one gains you no ground on the other. > mutt-kz keeps the license. It does not work with the greater mutt > community. > > -- > David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Conditional configuration
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:13:52PM -0800, David Champion wrote: > * On 29 Jan 2016, mutt-us...@rcdrun.com wrote: > > > > So, whoever is producing the fork, DOES work with the community within > > the scope of the GNU GPL. > > Working within a development community and keeping the terms of a > license are disjoint. Doing one gains you no ground on the other. > mutt-kz keeps the license. It does not work with the greater mutt > community. I wasn't familiar with mutt-kz, but ultimately, I think some of these projects have helped in less direct ways. I didn't follow the (now defunct, AFAICT) mutt-ng project much, but it seems to me as if it put some much needed pressure in terms of making mutt development a little more active (and maybe a little more accepting of adding new features). In the long run, it'll be clear if a project like this is going to build momentum or fizzle out, but I don't think it's a bad thing either way; it's just part of an eco-system. Additionally, if any great features get developed in the other project, it probably wouldn't take much to merge them in. w
Re: Conditional configuration
* On 29 Jan 2016, mutt-us...@rcdrun.com wrote: > Hello, > > I don't understand why be jealous on something that has been clearly > worked out in the licence itself. > > I don't know who is that man, but speak to him. Don't blame people for > doing something that was intended to do in the first place. > > It was intention that everyone can make a fork and do what they want. So > don't stamp on the freedom of software and GNU GPL, as there is just > nothing written about the "Community" in the licence. > > Not even the word "community" is there. I don't follow why you're bringing up the GPL. It has nothing to do with my concerns. I don't know who this guy is either, but as far as I know he's completely within his licensed rights and I have nothing to say about that. What bothers me is the approach. It follows the very loose flavor of a thousand "fork me on github" users. This model is OK. It's open source, it's great for downstream. But if only benefits upstream if someone makes the effort to patch upstream. The usual model is either that when you fork, you take responsibility for guiding changes back upstream, or that people at both ends become cooperative partners in exchanging ideas between forks. There are discussion and pull requests. Karel Zak doesn't do this (he's never posted to mutt-users or mutt-dev) and I don't recall that anyone else has ever made that effort either. So his project is de facto a divergent fork. It has its own distributions and adherents, and nobody is bringing any efforts in mutt-kz back to mutt. It divides the mutt user community. And his decision to convert all his development to git means that even if someone makes the missing effort, it's more work to cherrypick anything back to mutt. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Conditional configuration
Dear David, The efforts to bring back some sources to the original mutt are to be made by those developers of the original mutt. That is the point of the GNU GPL licence. I have looked up in my dictionary the word "envious": _painfully desirous of another's advantages_ You see the disadvantage. I see the benefit. Someone is developing on his own mutt software, and that may be patched in the original mutt. If you think this is too much work, why not speak to the person who has made the forked mutt? Why bash such person, who is contributing, on the public list that is going to stay here for ages. Rosario On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:58:47PM -0800, David Champion wrote: > * On 29 Jan 2016, mutt-us...@rcdrun.com wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I don't understand why be jealous on something that has been clearly > > worked out in the licence itself. > > > > I don't know who is that man, but speak to him. Don't blame people for > > doing something that was intended to do in the first place. > > > > It was intention that everyone can make a fork and do what they want. So > > don't stamp on the freedom of software and GNU GPL, as there is just > > nothing written about the "Community" in the licence. > > > > Not even the word "community" is there. > > I don't follow why you're bringing up the GPL. It has nothing to do > with my concerns. I don't know who this guy is either, but as far as I > know he's completely within his licensed rights and I have nothing to > say about that. > > What bothers me is the approach. It follows the very loose flavor of > a thousand "fork me on github" users. This model is OK. It's open > source, it's great for downstream. But if only benefits upstream if > someone makes the effort to patch upstream. The usual model is either > that when you fork, you take responsibility for guiding changes back > upstream, or that people at both ends become cooperative partners in > exchanging ideas between forks. There are discussion and pull requests. > Karel Zak doesn't do this (he's never posted to mutt-users or mutt-dev) > and I don't recall that anyone else has ever made that effort either. > > So his project is de facto a divergent fork. It has its own > distributions and adherents, and nobody is bringing any efforts in > mutt-kz back to mutt. It divides the mutt user community. And his > decision to convert all his development to git means that even if > someone makes the missing effort, it's more work to cherrypick anything > back to mutt.
Re: Conditional configuration
* On 29 Jan 2016, Will Yardley wrote: > > I wasn't familiar with mutt-kz, but ultimately, I think some of these > projects have helped in less direct ways. I didn't follow the (now > defunct, AFAICT) mutt-ng project much, but it seems to me as if it put > some much needed pressure in terms of making mutt development a little > more active (and maybe a little more accepting of adding new features). That's true, it did. But Rocco Rutte (who began/directed mutt-ng) was in regular communication with the upstream mutt user and development bases, and ultimately merged a great deal of his effort back to mutt and became a core maintainer. This is a completely different picture from mutt-kz. Understand that I'm not arguing against forks, or against nonlinear development. Moving to Mercurial from CVS was of tremendous benefit to mutt's growth. I myself have multiple forks and patch queues that are not part of upstream mutt. But I participate in the central mutt development community; there's always consideration of merging back to mainline mutt; and I take that responsibility on myself. By contrast I don't have any idea of where mutt-kz is headed, but indicators aren't positive (cf. converting to another vcs and never posting here). -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Conditional configuration
also sprach mutt-us...@rcdrun.com [2016-01-30 21:07 +1300]: > The efforts to bring back some sources to the original mutt are to > be made by those developers of the original mutt. I disagree. The open-source ecosystem works best if you avoid forks and try instead to move all improvements as far up the stream as you can. Anyway, I think this discussion is getting off-topic… -- @martinkrafft | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ "alas, i am dying beyond my means." -- oscar wilde spamtraps: madduck.bo...@madduck.net digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: Conditional configuration
* On 30 Jan 2016, mutt-us...@rcdrun.com wrote: > > to the person who has made the forked mutt? Why bash such person, who is > contributing, on the public list that is going to stay here for ages. So you've now accused me of jealousy, envy, and "bashing" -- I guess that's defamation? I don't think any of these are accurate. I'm describing why I don't agree with the choices another developer has made, and why I wish he had chosen differently. This grew naturally out of a discussion about differences between mutt-kz and mutt; I didn't just start weighing in ad hoc on another software project, and most of what I've said is in response to you, not the original topic. I've explained my position, so I'll let it lie there. Good luck with your approach of expecting upstream maintainers to independently discover and uptake the worthwhile developments in any forks of their projects. As a developer it seems backwards to me, but if it works for your coding projects, I'm glad for you. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Conditional configuration
I am sorry to bring you any negative feelings.
