On 07/15/2010 09:03 PM, Ronald Skeoch wrote:
As a long term Linux "open Core" developer
Here's the general consensus of "open core" which tries to exploit open source is anything but open:
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=3047&blogid=41
And you cannot make an "open core" project out of a derivative of a GPL work. The "open core" part has to be in surrounding apps that themselves do not link to any GPL code whatsoever.
Gerry
Am 16.07.2010 06:21, schrieb Gerry Reno:
And you cannot make an "open core" project out of a derivative of a GPL work. The "open core" part has to be in surrounding apps that themselves do not link to any GPL code whatsoever.
Hello Gerry, hello list members,
Please have a look back in time. A few months before there was not much traffic on this list and we've known every member of our community by name and face. Our community mainly is and was Linux4Afrika and later the german branch skolelinux too. Both projects are known to be aware about what open source is and both projects have choosen to use x2go. This is because they where able to modify it to their needs and to adopt own ideas. Upstream in this case means, that those modifications have been released in their projects, because the changes have been very specific to their solutions. Now this situation changes and x2go is getting more popular. But there are still a huge number of users (schools, institutions and companies) who rely on x2go and it's compatibility. x2go has its own "history". Every part of the new relase contains wishes from those and the people on the list. x2go has been and will ever be open source software. Furthermore it is based on existing open source software. This is - in our eyes - the only way x2go should be developed. Even more there is a vision / a target which we want to reach some day, which will help a lot of other projects -> getting the needed nx features realized using a modern xorg version. The sources have ever been online and will stay there and they are used by others like the maintainers of other distros (they could not build their packages if not - f.e. Gentoo). Please don't mix the governance of a project with the accuse of GPL violation. We can't answer every email on the list, but we are reading it. And if you follow the development of x2go, you'll see that there is a big accordance between the wishes / bugreports and the features of a new release. I would suggest we should discuss the idea of drawing a line between "mainstream", "contributions" and maybe "spins". We will definitly go on developing x2go (mainstream) as a to itself compatible and complete project. We will accept contributions in this branch, but they should be
- in the mind of "the whole" idea of x2go (a server based computing environment)
- not be destroying work already done
- maintainable by more than the submitting person
- usable for more than one specific use case only
- helping to make it possible to use recent xorg versions with the nxlibs features
- helping to get x2go inside debian
And (again):
PLEASE use the list as communication tool! I received a lot of emails about this topic in my private inbox. Keep your answers polite and help this discussion to be productive.
It would be nice to ask some questions first, before publishing your own truth. For example:
Why do you publish your code as tar.gz archive inside your repository?
Sure there are tools on this earth that make some things easier. But not using this tools don't means "forbidding" something like contributions. John has already used the list for this purpose and as far as I know it is already used by other users. We will use our online git as planned and we'll always thankfully awaiting patches and contributions.
To get back on the "communication issue": As far as I know "we" (or anybody else) never had communicate a final result about "how open x2go is". So this discussion needs to be done before accusing this project to be "what ever the result will be".
If you like to help other projects than x2go, please help them by contributing and not by boycott this on. Nobody is forced to use x2go and everybody can do whatever he want's to do as he can access the code.
Regards,
Alex & Heinz
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:52 +0200, Heinz-M. Graesing wrote:
Am 16.07.2010 06:21, schrieb Gerry Reno:
And you cannot make an "open core" project out of a derivative of a GPL work. The "open core" part has to be in surrounding apps that themselves do not link to any GPL code whatsoever.
Hello Gerry, hello list members, <snip>
x2go has been and will ever be open source software. Furthermore it is based on existing open source software. This is - in our eyes - the only way x2go should be developed. Even more there is a vision / a target which we want to reach some day, which will help a lot of other projects -> getting the needed nx features realized using a modern xorg version. The sources have ever been online and will stay there and they are used by others like the maintainers of other distros (they could not build their packages if not - f.e. Gentoo). Please don't mix the governance of a project with the accuse of GPL violation. We can't answer every email on the list, but we are reading it. And if you follow the development of x2go, you'll see that there is a big accordance between the wishes / bugreports and the features of a new release. I would suggest we should discuss the idea of drawing a line between "mainstream", "contributions" and maybe "spins". We will definitly go on developing x2go (mainstream) as a to itself compatible and complete project. We will accept contributions in this branch, but they should be
- in the mind of "the whole" idea of x2go (a server based computing environment)
- not be destroying work already done
- maintainable by more than the submitting person
- usable for more than one specific use case only
- helping to make it possible to use recent xorg versions with the nxlibs features
- helping to get x2go inside debian <snip> You certainly have our support and appreciation here at Pacifera. I've been biting my tongue (or should that be my fingers!) on this thread. I think you are receiving a lot of undeserved, unnecessary, and distracting grief.
I can say I've been working with Heinz and Alex on and off for the last two years and have found them pleasant, honest, and helpful. As far as I can see there is no hidden agenda, power mongering, control issues, or even major financial incentive such as open core. There is just the very practical issue of two great guys with full time jobs trying to contribute a big project to the world. THANK YOU.
I can quite understand. I maintain a languishing open source project which, after eight years still does things no other security product can do but I've not been able to take it forward. I've had people volunteer and there were just not enough hours in the day to even educate, guide, and direct the volunteers. Sometimes there are just not enough time.
Correspondingly, I've had to work harder on this project than others (find the code, not always get answers to questions on the code in a timely manner or at all) but, as a result, I've been able to contribute and help pick up the slack rather than just consume.
So, as someone far outside the development team, let me say there are not power issues here - just time issues. Let's please minimize distraction to Heinz and Alex and pick up the ball ourselves wherever possible. Thanks - John
Hi.
Well, using VCS doesn't mean that you are giving away power/leadership of the project. Using VCS means saving a lot of time and being a lot more productive, even if you do not accept any contribution of anybody. I agree with most of your points, but I didn't read any reason against using VCS. I'd love to work 1-2 hours per day on x2go, but NOT on source code that is a couple of months or even years old and send tar.gz through e-mail until the confusion is perfect and nobody knows who's talking about what state/revision of the code. But it is all right if you don't want that free gift. And no, VCS is not just a way to download files that could also be put in a .tar.gz - VCS is the one and only way to make structured open, fast and reliable development possible. If you don't believe me, ask anybody who has worked in a professional software project.
Anyway, this is my last mail on this subject - I have offered you my support and you don't want it for reasons I don't know. Please do not complain if an "x2go-ng" project appears on github in the next few months - I need to help myself and my clients - and well, I have asked you before.
Jörg
Am Freitag, den 16.07.2010, 12:52 +0200 schrieb Heinz-M. Graesing:
Am 16.07.2010 06:21, schrieb Gerry Reno:
And you cannot make an "open core" project out of a derivative of a GPL work. The "open core" part has to be in surrounding apps that themselves do not link to any GPL code whatsoever.
Hello Gerry, hello list members,
Please have a look back in time. A few months before there was not much traffic on this list and we've known every member of our community by name and face. Our community mainly is and was Linux4Afrika and later the german branch skolelinux too. Both projects are known to be aware about what open source is and both projects have choosen to use x2go. This is because they where able to modify it to their needs and to adopt own ideas. Upstream in this case means, that those modifications have been released in their projects, because the changes have been very specific to their solutions. Now this situation changes and x2go is getting more popular. But there are still a huge number of users (schools, institutions and companies) who rely on x2go and it's compatibility. x2go has its own "history". Every part of the new relase contains wishes from those and the people on the list. x2go has been and will ever be open source software. Furthermore it is based on existing open source software. This is - in our eyes - the only way x2go should be developed. Even more there is a vision / a target which we want to reach some day, which will help a lot of other projects -> getting the needed nx features realized using a modern xorg version. The sources have ever been online and will stay there and they are used by others like the maintainers of other distros (they could not build their packages if not - f.e. Gentoo). Please don't mix the governance of a project with the accuse of GPL violation. We can't answer every email on the list, but we are reading it. And if you follow the development of x2go, you'll see that there is a big accordance between the wishes / bugreports and the features of a new release. I would suggest we should discuss the idea of drawing a line between "mainstream", "contributions" and maybe "spins". We will definitly go on developing x2go (mainstream) as a to itself compatible and complete project. We will accept contributions in this branch, but they should be
- in the mind of "the whole" idea of x2go (a server based computing environment)
- not be destroying work already done
- maintainable by more than the submitting person
- usable for more than one specific use case only
- helping to make it possible to use recent xorg versions with the nxlibs features
- helping to get x2go inside debian
And (again):
PLEASE use the list as communication tool! I received a lot of emails about this topic in my private inbox. Keep your answers polite and help this discussion to be productive.
It would be nice to ask some questions first, before publishing your own truth. For example:
Why do you publish your code as tar.gz archive inside your repository?
Sure there are tools on this earth that make some things easier. But not using this tools don't means "forbidding" something like contributions. John has already used the list for this purpose and as far as I know it is already used by other users. We will use our online git as planned and we'll always thankfully awaiting patches and contributions.
To get back on the "communication issue": As far as I know "we" (or anybody else) never had communicate a final result about "how open x2go is". So this discussion needs to be done before accusing this project to be "what ever the result will be".
If you like to help other projects than x2go, please help them by contributing and not by boycott this on. Nobody is forced to use x2go and everybody can do whatever he want's to do as he can access the code.
Regards,
Alex & Heinz
X2go-dev mailing list X2go-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-dev
Dear Jörg,
Am Freitag, den 16.07.2010, 15:27 +0200 schrieb Joerg Sawatzki:
Well, using VCS doesn't mean that you are giving away power/leadership of the project. Using VCS means saving a lot of time and being a lot more productive, even if you do not accept any contribution of anybody. I agree with most of your points, but I didn't read any reason against using VCS.
that is because no reasons were stated.
I'd love to work 1-2 hours per day on x2go, but NOT on source code that is a couple of months or even years old and send tar.gz through e-mail until the confusion is perfect and nobody knows who's talking about what state/revision of the code. But it is all right if you don't want that free gift. And no, VCS is not just a way to download files that could also be put in a .tar.gz - VCS is the one and only way to make structured open, fast and reliable development possible. If you don't believe me, ask anybody who has worked in a professional software project.
I heard stories about the development environments in professional software projects in some companies. I guess you would run away screaming. ;-)
Anyway, this is my last mail on this subject - I have offered you my support and you don't want it for reasons I don't know. Please do not complain if an "x2go-ng" project appears on github in the next few months - I need to help myself and my clients - and well, I have asked you before.
I talked to Heinz at LinuxTag and read his answers. As far as I understood, they are using a VCS (Git) already and they are going to make it public!
But it will take them some time. So we could argue about the correct order of the priority list, but I suggest to be patient a little more and to be optimistic that this will happen soon.
Seeing all you people raring to go to get your hands dirty, I am looking forward to all your contributions!
Thanks,
Paul
Hi Joerg,
On Fr 16 Jul 2010 15:27:52 CEST Joerg Sawatzki wrote:
Hi.
Well, using VCS doesn't mean that you are giving away power/leadership of the project. Using VCS means saving a lot of time and being a lot more productive, even if you do not accept any contribution of anybody. I agree with most of your points, but I didn't read any reason against using VCS. I'd love to work 1-2 hours per day on x2go, but NOT on source code that is a couple of months or even years old and send tar.gz through e-mail until the confusion is perfect and nobody knows who's talking about what state/revision of the code. But it is all right if you don't want that free gift. And no, VCS is not just a way to download files that could also be put in a .tar.gz - VCS is the one and only way to make structured open, fast and reliable development possible. If you don't believe me, ask anybody who has worked in a professional software project.
Anyway, this is my last mail on this subject - I have offered you my support and you don't want it for reasons I don't know. Please do not complain if an "x2go-ng" project appears on github in the next few months - I need to help myself and my clients - and well, I have asked you before.
I get your point about VCS completely, GIT is planned by the
developers for the very near future. It will come after the next
release is out. As a contributer, working on the most recent code base
is absolutely necessary for providing your contributions.
However, I strongly think, that we should focus our brains and hearts
on a common solution for X2go!!!
Maybe this needs time, patience and also a soft perception for the
needs, wishes and hesitations of others. You can never go too deep,
but only too fast...
Similar to you, I am currently working on a terminal server concept
for schools in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. Maybe there is interest on
your side to share ideas and approaches. Please contact me privately
(and in German) if you like.
Best, Mike
--
DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, dorfstr. 27, 24245 barmissen fon: +49 (4302) 281418, fax: +49 (4302) 281419
eMail-LeseSchreibStunde: wochentags 8h-10h mail: m.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de
freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xf...
Alex, Heinz,
I did not start this thread with any intent of accusation toward
x2go. I merely went looking for the source code and when I could not
find it I then asked on the list for the locations of all the source
code. There was no clear statement I could find on the project that said:
==> here is a link to all the source code for the project.
So I asked the question. Then there were other posts that made
statements about collaboration was not a priority for the project maybe
and so I clarified that that was fine but since the project was linking
NX GPL-v2 libraries that the source needed to be readily available. And
I had already experienced other projects that were not honoring GPL so I
commented about the GPL. Heinz then you responded with information as
to where to find the source code which I checked and found the source
for the plugin was not in any of the source trees provided so I asked
where was the source for the plugin. At this point further posts were
coming in and there appeared some confusion as to the term open source
and the licensing and I have seen this for many many years so I wrote a
short writeup on the topic. I have some background in open source
having been involved in over two dozen open source projects over the
years. So then we see a post about "open core" which many people
currently view as undermining open source so I provided clarification on
the subject and a link to a recent article discussing the implications
of this idea.
All of this whole thread could actually have been avoided if the
project would have set out some clear statements regarding the conduct
of the project (open source, open core, closed source, etc.), the
licenses that were involved, the location of the complete source
repository (git/svn/bzr etc.), the involvement of the community, and a
roadmap for where the project was going. Ever single open source
project I have been involved with to date has had these available from
the earliest days of the project. And this project is several years old
currently and still there are not these things. Now would be a good
time to spend a day or two and create these things.
After having reviewed the project for a while now it is obvious that
you guys are very talented as far as writing code. To be sure the
project still has bugs, but overall the various pieces perform rather
well together. And it is also clear that you have put a great deal of
work toward the project. And having written code for many years in many
languages I know what it takes to create and organize software projects
such as this. And I can fully appreciate the level of effort that it
has taken to write this amount of code from a small team. I think now
though it is time to open the door so to speak and let the community
help drive the software forward. You should be the conductor of the
orchestra now and not just playing the instruments. And yes, this
software is your creation, but it stands on the shoulders of other open
source and it is time to open it up completely so that others may freely
contribute to it. To that end there needs to be a "forge" involved.
Something like Launchpad or SourceForge with all its features fully
enabled. Bug tracker, source repository, collaboration tools, all this
is needed and is simple to acquire on one of the forges.
Lastly, if this project is truly a 100% open source project you will
find me one of your biggest proponents. And I want to thank both of you
for all of the fine work that has been done on the project so far. You
have had some very early supporters like the Linux4Africa that have been
able to employ the software in a large environment. And that is a
testament to the usefulness of the software. And now there are others
in a growing open source community that are experimenting with the
software and trying to see if it will fit their needs. And so
structuring the project to allow greater participation will do nothing
but help both the software and you two guys. People will always need
and pay for the assistance of the core developers in enterprise
deployments. And as the software strengthens you will see many requests
come in for your consultation. It is always important that the core
developers should be supported financially in any open source project so
that there is guaranteed continuance of the software knowledge base.
And I wish you great success in that regard. Just let us help you.
Regards, Gerry
-
Gerry Reno -
Heinz-M. Graesing -
Joerg Sawatzki -
John A. Sullivan III -
Mike Gabriel -
Paul Menzel -
Ronald Skeoch