On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Simon J Mudd wrote:
>
> l...@madstop.com (Luke Kanies) writes:
>
>> I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame-
>> fest, but it needs to be broached, so here we go.
>
> ...
>
> I'm a little surprised by the problem.
It's really only a problem
l...@madstop.com (Luke Kanies) writes:
> I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame-
> fest, but it needs to be broached, so here we go.
...
I'm a little surprised by the problem.
One way to perhaps make things easier is to break puppet into
independent chunks of code
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 12:05 -0400, Jason Slagle wrote:
> Different operating model than the ones I'm thinking of. Things like
> zmanda as pointed out where the commercial version will get features or
> other items not yet present in the community edition.
What Red Hat sells, and customers see
On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Kyle Cordes wrote:
> Luke Kanies wrote:
>> Considering how many people have told me they don't buy support
>> because they find Puppet so easy that they just don't need help, I'm
>> not too concerned about this yet.
>
> I think you're getting a false signal from this. I
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Michael Semcheski wrote:
> I don't want to
> hear that I have to file a bug report - I'd rather open a trouble
> ticket, upload my log files, and let a level 1 technician write the
> bug report and give me the solution. What it comes down to is my
> employer can
On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jason Slagle wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Burkholder, Peter wrote:
>
>>> That's not how the model tends to work though. Usually the
>>> paid community gets the product first with the community
>>> version lagging behind by a release.
>>
>> Huh? Not in Red Hat'
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Burkholder, Peter wrote:
>> That's not how the model tends to work though. Usually the
>> paid community gets the product first with the community
>> version lagging behind by a release.
>
> Huh? Not in Red Hat's model:
>
> Fedora -> RHEL
> JOPR -> JON
> Spacewalk -> Satel
> That's not how the model tends to work though. Usually the
> paid community gets the product first with the community
> version lagging behind by a release.
Huh? Not in Red Hat's model:
Fedora -> RHEL
JOPR -> JON
Spacewalk -> Satellite.
The community version leads, not lags.
-Peter
--~
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Shafer wrote:
> The way I saw it before your email (and this isn't just in regard to Puppet)
> was a classification of support customers handful of overlapping
> categories. For example 'bought support as a company policy', 'recognized
> the value of the pr
Andrew Shafer wrote:
> The way I saw it before your email (and this isn't just in regard to
> Puppet) was a classification of support customers handful of overlapping
> categories. For example
> 'bought support as a company policy',
> 'recognized the value of the project and bought support t
Luke Kanies wrote:
> Considering how many people have told me they don't buy support
> because they find Puppet so easy that they just don't need help, I'm
> not too concerned about this yet.
I think you're getting a false signal from this. I am confident that
tools in/around Puppet to make
Jason Slagle wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>
>> Kyle Cordes wrote:
>>> There is dangerous territory nearby: Paying customers have a higher
>>> expectation of a smooth out-of-box-experience, than open source users;
>>> to make this happen it is necessary to debug vigorously. Ho
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Kyle Cordes wrote:
>>
>> There is dangerous territory nearby: Paying customers have a higher
>> expectation of a smooth out-of-box-experience, than open source users;
>> to make this happen it is necessary to debug vigorously. However, open
>> source use
Kyle Cordes wrote:
> Luke Kanies wrote:
>> As is probably obvious, I've scaled back my free online support and my
>> attempts at fixing every bug ever, but a certain amount is still
>
> There is dangerous territory nearby: Paying customers have a higher
> expectation of a smooth out-of-box-e
Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 4:37 PM, David Lutterkort wrote:
>
>>> What do you think?
>> I am also much in favor of #2. I can see that relicensing as LGPL
>> might
>> make some sense.
>
> That seems to be the majority view so far, but there are still plenty
> of concerns about th
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Mike wrote:
>
> I've been using Puppet for a month or two, and plan to keep on using
> it. I would imagine that as long as there is a not-stagnant
> community, bugs are being fixed regularly, it is included as part of
> the distributions I use, and nothing comes a
>>
>> Related to this, I can tell you from personal experience in
>> commercial
>> software: support costs can be an enormously drain. The most
>> effective
>> way to keep them down is with relentless quality improvement: kill
>> bugs,
>> make features more comprehensible, document, make failu
On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:07 PM, Kyle Cordes wrote:
>
> Luke Kanies wrote:
>> As is probably obvious, I've scaled back my free online support and
>> my
>> attempts at fixing every bug ever, but a certain amount is still
>
> There is dangerous territory nearby: Paying customers have a higher
> expec
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:14:07PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote:
> > I agree that #2 seems best. I'm really shocked by the Chef
> > project; it seems really offensive to me, and I'd like to see
> > you guys go in a direction that stops someone from just
> > rebundling Puppet and calling it theirs.
>
Luke Kanies wrote:
> As is probably obvious, I've scaled back my free online support and my
> attempts at fixing every bug ever, but a certain amount is still
There is dangerous territory nearby: Paying customers have a higher
expectation of a smooth out-of-box-experience, than open source u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luke Kanies wrote:
> I think our focus on building community stands on its own, but the
> contributor list is an equally clear indication that being paid to
> work on Puppet results in a lot more work being done on Puppet - of
> the top ten Pupp
On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:19 PM, Jason Slagle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>>> I feel option number 2 will further limit the number of people
>>> willing to
>>> contribute code. Especially if you plan to sell it commercially
>>> later.
>>> For instance, at my employer here I co
On Apr 6, 2009, at 6:29 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 05:15:38PM -0500, Kyle Cordes wrote:
>>
>> Paul Lathrop wrote:
>>> best for Reductive Labs and the Puppet community as a whole. On
>>> the other hand, I also know that the copyright assignment thing
>>> is going to ma
On Apr 6, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Paul Lathrop wrote:
> I wish I knew more about the issues at hand. I know that my existing
> knowledge as well as my intuition leads me to agree that option #2 is
> best for Reductive Labs and the Puppet community as a whole. On the
> other hand, I also know that the c
On Apr 6, 2009, at 4:37 PM, David Lutterkort wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:15 -0500, Luke Kanies wrote:
>> I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame-
>> fest
>
> Here we go ;)
Indeed.
>
>> 1) Should we use a completely open Apache-style license, or a
>> reciprocal
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Luke Kanies wrote:
>> I feel option number 2 will further limit the number of people
>> willing to
>> contribute code. Especially if you plan to sell it commercially
>> later.
>> For instance, at my employer here I could contribute some code (and
>> as I
>> bone up on Ruby I
On Apr 6, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:15:44PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote:
>> I think there are essentially two decisions to make, with some
>> details around them:
>>
>> 1) Should we use a completely open Apache-style license, or a
>> reciprocal/viral G
On Apr 6, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Luke Kanies writes:
>
>> 2) Stick to a viral/reciprocal license (probably AGPLv3) but require
>> Sun-style copyright contribution (which provides the project a non-
>> exclusive license to the copyright). This provides a single
>> organization
On Apr 6, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Kyle Cordes wrote:
>
> Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>> 2) Stick to a viral/reciprocal license (probably AGPLv3) but require
>> Sun-style copyright contribution (which provides the project a non-
>> exclusive license to the copyright). This provides a single
>> organization w
I've been using Puppet for a month or two, and plan to keep on using
it. I would imagine that as long as there is a not-stagnant
community, bugs are being fixed regularly, it is included as part of
the distributions I use, and nothing comes along that is a lot better,
I'll keep using it. But the
On Apr 6, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Jason Slagle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>> 1) Leave them like they are. No copyright assignment, no real
>> copyright maintenance, GPL2 or later. This means that every
>> contributor ever must give permission for things like license
>> chan
On Apr 6, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame-
>> fest, but it needs to be broached, so here we go. Note that I kind
>> of
>> think this is m
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 05:15:38PM -0500, Kyle Cordes wrote:
>
> Paul Lathrop wrote:
> > best for Reductive Labs and the Puppet community as a whole. On
> > the other hand, I also know that the copyright assignment thing
> > is going to make it more difficult for me to make contributions.
> > Alt
Paul Lathrop wrote:
> best for Reductive Labs and the Puppet community as a whole. On the
> other hand, I also know that the copyright assignment thing is going
> to make it more difficult for me to make contributions. Although I'm
My impression is that the bulk of projects that use a
commercial
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame-
> fest, but it needs to be broached, so here we go. Note that I kind of
> think this is more of dev topic than users, but I want to make sure
> everyone knows t
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 16:03 -0400, Jason Slagle wrote:
> I must admit I'm a fan of the Apache license or a BSD license of some
> sort. It gives you the right to sell it while also remaining open. It
> also means that I don't have to have a copyright laywer on staff to modify
> your code and u
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:15 -0500, Luke Kanies wrote:
> I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame-
> fest
Here we go ;)
> 1) Should we use a completely open Apache-style license, or a
> reciprocal/viral GPL-style license?
I would prefer if you dropped the word 'viral
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:15:44PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote:
> I think there are essentially two decisions to make, with some
> details around them:
>
> 1) Should we use a completely open Apache-style license, or a
> reciprocal/viral GPL-style license?
I'm not a big fan of viral-style in most c
Luke Kanies writes:
> 2) Stick to a viral/reciprocal license (probably AGPLv3) but require
> Sun-style copyright contribution (which provides the project a non-
> exclusive license to the copyright). This provides a single
> organization with a license for all copyright, and allows that license
Luke Kanies wrote:
> 2) Stick to a viral/reciprocal license (probably AGPLv3) but require
> Sun-style copyright contribution (which provides the project a non-
> exclusive license to the copyright). This provides a single
> organization with a license for all copyright, and allows that lice
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Luke Kanies wrote:
> 1) Leave them like they are. No copyright assignment, no real
> copyright maintenance, GPL2 or later. This means that every
> contributor ever must give permission for things like license changes,
> we can't easily protect against license infringement
>
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame-
> fest, but it needs to be broached, so here we go. Note that I kind of
> think this is more of dev topic than users, but I want to make sure
> everyone knows th
42 matches
Mail list logo
