[Compcomm] The Next Step

[Robert Carr]

It turns out servers are real physical objects and it needs to be
clear who owns them. Given that the Berylbox was bought with donations
it makes sense to have some sort of project based ownership.

On 4/20/07, Arturo Monterroso <moowiki at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, after a rather ugly week I just went through 190+ messages, half of
> which where pure crap. I threw them away.
>
> Here's what I think:
>
> This merge is a train-wreck already on-going, but since we're on the fucking
> first cart we might as well do something to save our own asses.
>
> You all should stop whining about licenses, forum software, packaging
> conventions and all that stuff. I mean, if you don't have a community you
> don't need a forum, if you don't have actual code you don't have anything to
> license, and if you don't have production-ready software you don't have
> anything to package. So stop discussing all this things when you're not
> ready to use them or exploit them properly.
>
> We should just create a new board on the current Compiz forum and work there
> for now. Once the code merge is complete without regressions and all plugins
> properly ported we can start talking about a new project with a new name
> based on this new code base.
>
> You're talking about creating a software foundation... for what? So you can
> claim legal ownership of some servers on the net? Sheesh... You are
> comparing this to Apache? For crying out loud!! We have nothing, absolutely
> nothing worth creating a foundation for.
>
> I, for now, will throw all of this shit in my waste bin and continue to
> contribute stuff to the Compiz wiki and to moderate the Compiz forum. Please
> let me know when you have something done, if that ever happens.
>
> Arturo (amgeex)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Matthew Swaringen <xanas3712 at matrixcentral.net>
> To: Composite Community List <compcomm at Rock3d.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:07:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Compcomm] The Next Step
>
> Mike Dransfield wrote:
> > No - it never has been
> >
> > Neither is PHP, Apache or MySQL.  You should probably stop using them
> > too and find alternatives that use the GPL if you are so keen on it.
> >
> > I suspect up to half of the software you are using now is NOT GPL.
> >
> >
> Thanks for the correction.  Should have looked it up to make sure on
> that.  I'm aware that the others aren't GPL.    As for being "keen on
> it" I'll agree that I am, but I don't see why that would mean I
> couln't/shouldn't use software that is not gpl.  I said not using
> proprietary software instead of GPL made sense to me as a valid
> viewpoint (I didn't even say it was my view, and it isn't) .  I never
> referred to open-source software using licenses other than the GPL
> BSD/MIT/etc. are still open licenses, they aren't proprietary at all.
> SMF & Vbulletin are both proprietary.  It's proprietary vs. GPL I was
> referring to, not GPL vs everything else.
> > Compiz is MIT licensed which is similar to BSD, so your
> > point is voided again because you do not seem to understand
> > the difference between open source and GPL.
> >
> >
> >
> Ignorance is not the same as stupidity.  I do understand the difference
> between open source and the GPL  The fact I was incorrect about Compiz'
> license is ignorance, not stupidity.  It has no bearing on anything but
> itself.  I made an invalid argument based on information that was incorrect.
> > You totally did a u-turn there, pointing out the benefits of not
> > using software just based on the license alone.
> >
> > Hypocracy is always welcome here though, as long as your point
> > appeals to the community you will be OK.
> >
> >
> I get a sense of bitterness here.  But I admit to doing a "u-turn" as
> you put it.  That's why I openly admitted to a bit of hypocrisy there.
> I do justify my actions a bit in that statement too.  I never said using
> non-open software when you are working on open software is 100% wrong,
> and my forum is not for an open source project.  I said "if the GPL
> software is truly so atrocious and unworkable." In other words, if it
> can't be used by all means use something else, or use something
> proprietary for that matter.
>
> Anyhow, I wouldn't have made the argument at all based on the MIT or BSD
> licenses, which don't have the same reasons for existence as the GPL.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CompComm mailing list
> CompComm at Rock3d.org
> http://www.ubaight.com/mailman/listinfo/compcomm
>
>
>  ________________________________
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>  Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> _______________________________________________
> CompComm mailing list
> CompComm at Rock3d.org
> http://www.ubaight.com/mailman/listinfo/compcomm
>
>