Andy, I think you made part your position clear, and overall, if you felt you had to fork that code, so be it. That part is totally fine for me. This is to grant that right among others that we released the code under an open source licence. However, I think you are purposefully eluding the main question: How can you affirm that our contribution model is "against the spirit of free software", imply that it is unhealthy, and at the same time endorse your own employer's policies (c.f. references in my initial reply) ? If you're being honest, in the light of your own argumentation, you simply can't. So please, could you either confirm that you think that RedHat's routine contribution models (described earlier) are unhealthy and "against the spirit of free software" or explain why your arguments would apply only to our project but not your employer's ? Best Regards, Jerome On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Andy Grover <agrover@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/08/2011 02:46 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > Really, I honesty don't think forking the code to a distro specific > > version and introducing changes to the codebase without any discussion > > from us (or the list) is fostering healthy FOSS development. > > I've published repos to github. I welcome review of the changes I'm > making as well as contributions and bug reports from anyone (and > anything distro-specific is a bug that will be fixed). > > I listed the issues on target-devel back in September, and we've > discussed this over Skype repeatedly since then. > > > I don't see how our use of the MIT license for contributions dis-engages > > the community-driven model of development any more than what Fedora or > > your employer is also doing wrt contributions using MIT. Also, none of > > the other major distributions who have included our userspace code have > > a problem with respecting our wishes wrt to outside contributions. > > There have been no external contributions to targetcli under MIT > license. If you had licensed your code under MIT, then there would have > been -- at least from me. > > RTS can't accept AGPLed code because you ship a proprietary version. RTS > can't release MIT-licensed code because you're worried about your > proprietary competitors shipping it. > > This is zero-sum thinking w.r.t. targetcli, but it's completely refuted > by the *other* code you released, the kernel target code! We've seen > major changes and improvements by myself and others. It's crazy you are > ok with that, but you're upset over the library that gets and pokes > values into configfs??? > > > Also, we are not limiting or obfuscating our code in any way, and > > provide a fully usable free version for all to use and improve. > > That's all I'm doing. Your AGPL license gives users the right to modify > the code and redistribute changes without your approval. > > > So that said, we would still like an answer from you as to why you think > > it's OK for Redhat to use MIT for contributions or take other more > > drastic measures when it feels necessary to protect it's intellectual > > property position, but not OK for a small company who is funding the > > vast majority of development work to also protect it's intellectual > > property position. > > You still have the same rights w.r.t. your code as you did before. All I > did was publish my changes under a license you won't accept, and solicit > the same from others. > > -- Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
