[geeklog-devtalk] geeklog-devel digest, Vol 1 #310 - 2 msgs

[geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net]

Send geeklog-devel mailing list submissions to
	geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	geeklog-devel-admin at lists.geeklog.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of geeklog-devel digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. ACCU: Open source licenses 101 (Dirk Haun)
   2. ACCU: Funding Open Source (Dirk Haun)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: "Dirk Haun" <dirk at haun-online.de>
To: <geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:59:57 +0200
Organization: Terra Software Systems
Subject: [geeklog-devel] ACCU: Open source licenses 101
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

Tony wanted a full report from the ACCU conference, so here's part 1 ;-)

The presentation "Open Source licenses 101" didn't really tell me
anything about those licenses that I didn't know already.

An interesting point, though, that the presenter made was that in his
opinion, the GPL is often chosen for convenience's sake and not because
the developers really meant it or have it thought through properly.

I brought up the topic of web applications, which we have discussed
before: If you modify a web application that is released under the GPL
(say, Geeklog), and you only use it to run a website but you don't
distribute your modified version, then you don't have to share your
modifications. The presenter agreed that this was an oversight in the GPL
- mostly because at the time the GPL was written, web applications as
such didn't really exist. He wasn't aware of any other open source
license that covers this case either.

Since the presenter was David Ascher from ActiveState, I asked him (after
the talk) about the chances of them porting Komodo to MacOS X.
Apparently, they do get that question a lot, but not often enough to make
it worthwhile funding the development of such a version. So he didn't
exactly say "no", but he made it clear that the chances are slim.

Too bad. I guess I have to try running Komodo remotely off of my Linux
box. David Ascher mentioned that people seem to be doing it, although it
tends to be a bit sluggish.

bye, Dirk


-- 
http://www.haun-online.de/
http://www.macosx-faq.de/


--__--__--

Message: 2
From: "Dirk Haun" <dirk at haun-online.de>
To: <geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:11:10 +0200
Organization: Terra Software Systems
Subject: [geeklog-devel] ACCU: Funding Open Source
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

ACCU conference report, part 2:

The presentation on funding open source development mainly revolved
around bounties and EU funds, both of which don't really apply to us
(i.e. to Geeklog). There was one interesting idea, though (see below).

Bounties: Some organisations are willing to pay for the development of
certain open source software. So they specify what has to be written and
give the money to the first person or group that comes along and actually
implemented it. Mark Shuttleworth is running such a scheme, see <http://
www.markshuttleworth.com/bounty.html>.

EU funds: There aren't any specific EU funds for developing open source
software, but several of the existing funds could be applied to open
source developement. The problems are that 1) the funds are only
available for new developments and 2) they involve a lot of paper work
(to the extend that it is recommended to actually hire someone
specifically to do the paperwork).

Another interesting concept that was mentioned is that of "sponsoring"
the implementation of new features or bug fixes in existing applications.
Say that, for example, a person or a group of persons would be willing to
pay someone to implement a specific feature and that the result would
then be integrated into the application. This could be done by either the
actual developers or by some external party.

Paying for bugfixes sounds a bit odd at first. However, if you look
through our list of open bugs, you'll find a few long-standing but
annoying ones. Take, for example, the backslash issue (i.e. backslashes
disappear from postings). I have a rough idea what the problem is and I
do know that it will require a lot of work (and testing) to fix it. So
even though I consider it pretty embarrassing to have such a seemingly
trivial bug in our software, I just couldn't persuade myself yet to
tackle it. A bit of cash could just be enough to bring myself (or someone
else) to finally do it.

Surely, this shouldn't become the standard path to get new features or
bugfixes into Geeklog. Since all of us developers use Geeklog to run
sites of our own, there is enough motivation to continue to develop (and
debug) it anyway. But sponsorships could help getting specific features
into the software.

Food for thought (and open for discussion).

bye, Dirk


-- 
http://www.haun-online.de/
http://www.macosx-faq.de/



--__--__--

_______________________________________________
geeklog-devel mailing list
geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel


End of geeklog-devel Digest