Some notes on copyright and licensing

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #30 – March 05, 2013, 11:59:05 am

QuoteIt has come to my attention that SFLC has sent these days, to the SM Corporation, an advice.

My understanding that it is over the revised wording of the copyright in respect of what they think it should say and what the SFLC says about it.

QuoteBecause there is actually no real "legal OMG legal matter" here.
Since not all contributors agree with the role of the corporation as "authority"/"editor", over the software, then they should just stop their claims. Since they only alienate the community. Over no real "legal issue".

SMF team? Cede control? descends into insane laughter

I'm not sure they disagree with the legal counsel. However... I'm not sure the real situation was made clear to the legal counsel in the first place - so the counsel advises based on what they are told but if what they are told is inaccurate, they're going to provide 'bad' advice.

I have an understanding of what the proposal is. If it is as I understand, it is not substantially different to what we have seen before, in that it is just as inaccurate as we have seen and that the underlying problem of who really owns what hasn't been solved, and may well have been misrepresented.

QuoteThe interests of a very closed group of non-contributors are more important than you, your work, your time, your code.

More critically, they do not understand 1) that it IS a problem, 2) WHY it is a problem, or 3) that it applies to THEM.

The upcoming SMF project manager election is interesting. At least one candidate is campaigning on the bill of getting the NPO as far out of the main SMF project as possible. It will be interesting to see what happens and whether it fosters a change in this deeply-entrenched mindset.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #31 – March 19, 2013, 09:00:22 am

Quote from: TE – February 28, 2013, 02:49:59 pm
QuoteThat the corporation/team members sit and "make decisions" on what they allow their "coders" to do. This is their closed-team enforced "edition" of the software that would get, from now on, released under SMF name - assuming anything ever will.

Thank you Norv, you made my day :)

Exactly what I felt while beeing a SMF team member and the main reason why I've ignored all forms of contact from team members after I left (I've ignored your PMs as well, you may remember, but it wasn't directed against you, I've simply ignored them because you had a team badge at that time).

I know, TE, and I should apologize.
The simple truth is, no serious developer would or can contribute to a project which is not lead by developers.
If developers don't try, find, or succeed a good way for a governance model (which is not a corporate model, and never a corporation of non-devs, of course), then there is no "project". Under that name.
I'm sorry. FWIW, I apologize.

QuoteHow volunteer projects work, IMO:
- Wedge is a closed projekt, and it works well, because it has two very competent and strong leaders, who lead the project as well as the codebase.

And they've done amazing work, and advanced the community software in the direction of their dreams, involving in a way the community too. Even as an essentially closed project, they're doing it very well, come forward with their intentions, and take community input.

Quote- Elkarte is a completely open project, and it seems to work well, too. Everyone can contribute, make suggestions / contributions and it is beeing discussed between the code contributors (and community).

From (part of) my perspective, we continue doing what we were doing. I believe every one of us here had their goals to achieve in the best forum software we want to have, and we want everyone to have. And I know developers were going towards this kind of process we see here now.
They're focusing more on the code than the process or project presentation (and that was normal), at the moment, but as we're getting ready for public beta release, we will see more on how it works, with everyone who is getting involved at any level.

Quote- SMF wants to be open, but IMO it is far away from open. While beeing on the team I had always the feeling, everyone (team and friends) wanted to be involved in any decision, I left a long time ago but from what I read it is still the same..

Yes. Actually, it's worse than how you left it. It's fizzling away over there, TE. You were right in 2010, and I couldn't turn it around.

QuoteThe SMF company needs to learn this: The coding guys (and girls, of course ;) ) are the ones who build the base. Without this base the entire project is needless. Don't scare the contributors away or the project will die, sooner or later..

Some people never learn. Management never learns. Corporations are always this way, they suffocate Open Source projects, no matter if you call them LLCs or NPOs. SM should have never become a corporation, but it did, to a level which is, IMO, simply unfixable, all things (and I mean all) considered.

That makes it only more important (and I address to Arantor as well here), that we move forward. People need to rely on the project they choose to run on their servers. It's important for thousand of installations out there.

The thing is, at the end of the day, that Open Source projects don't really die, as long as there are dedicated developers and a community around them. They will be reborn under another name, when it comes to that. It's not easy, it's not a game of sorts, as some people imagine. It takes work, it takes dedication, it takes knowledge and it requires freedom. And they have all that, and it is what they need to do, to make sure the software is safe, at the level of quality they're comfortable with, filling the goals they set for the releases, free to be deployed when they know it has to.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #32 – March 19, 2013, 06:34:40 pm

QuoteThat makes it only more important (and I address to Arantor as well here), that we move forward

I've left them to it, because after the last few days I've come to the conclusion that there's not really anything of the project to salvage and of the software, all concerned who want, and have the ability, to move it forward are doing just that under their own steam.

I find it slightly ironic, and slightly sad, that in the pursuit of the title of openness, they have secured the software's future, but at a very high cost.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #33 – April 04, 2013, 10:13:02 pm

(05:00:52 PM) Norv: Oh, on another note. A remark. It's been so so sad to me (or enraging!), to see some thing on the April 1st joke: in News and Announcements, meaning "officially", people state their pride to "ask and receive permission" to use the software - or icons or theme. SM/SMF is PROUD and officially continues to endorse proprietary software.

On one side, I think themes and design generally, should have always leeway. Just think at premium themes. That's not an issue. What people do on their work is whatever they choose to do.

But what the project does, "officially", the announcements, the way they interact, recommend, to the community, is another story. Endorsing proprietary mindset in the own acts of the project. (The sad part is, I have the subjective conviction that people don't even realize when they're doing it... It's a reflex, after 10 years of proprietary project. It's "normal" to state they proudly continue to apply proprietary software - not only old stuff [existing], but also newly.)

On the other hand, I think we all know the Wedge issue with the "ban" from so-called "official showcasing" of forks. (which in itself is strange... and yet another story.)
To summarize: do what I say, don't do what I do. Heh.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #34 – April 04, 2013, 11:50:17 pm

QuoteI find it slightly ironic, and slightly sad, that in the pursuit of the title of openness, they have secured the software's future, but at a very high cost.

Not exactly, Arantor. "They" (whoever you mean) did not really pursue openness - sure, people usually agreed with it, but did usually not pursue it. They usually don't know how. And I understand that - after 10 years of proprietary mindset and culture of closeness-by-design. (by design, not randomly, not temporary, not any other way)

I am not blaming people for not knowing, I am not blaming people for not wanting, even. It's the empty pretenses that ... lets just say do not stand right with me. And even that, is not fully relevant.

I have made the project free, and tried to open it, in the measure I could, and could figure out how - considering the circumstances and people's will. Until the movement ended. Until the corporation - one way or the other - and proprietary/corporate mindset and actions made it impossible. Pushed out all developers, and other people, and left the project with no future.
"They" support - and claim to "own" - a dying project, and that's... just how it is.

You see, I believe the project needed, absolutely needed, freedom, and I tried to do so. To bring it out, to the community. To the best of my knowledge and conviction, it was an absolute necessity and a will of an entire community in 2010. Remember SMF-Friends site, remember former developers intentions to make an alternative project BSD-licensed, in 2010/2011.

Not "they", not the "corporation", not the "team", not the "steering committees". With all due respect. People usually agreed, with the steps we (developers, most of the time) made, and that's how it's supposed to be, but that's saying something different.

But I failed to bring the project much on the path of openness. It ended too soon, for the mentality of openness, and the culture of freedom, to stick with people, to change the way it works. Perhaps it was impossible anyway, perhaps it's my mistakes, perhaps both. I don't know.

What you see today, is not "they" and "their openness". There is no such thing, most of the time.
It's a confused number of people, taken over by a corporation and its management, and a project in agony, under that name. It doesn't know where it is, and it's unfixable.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #35 – April 05, 2013, 12:25:39 am

QuoteOn the other hand, I think we all know the Wedge issue with the "ban" from so-called "official showcasing" of forks. (which in itself is strange... and yet another story.)

Of course we do. We've always known. I would have long been satisfied if they'd just admit it rather than hide it behind some 'it's not open therefore you can't play in our sandbox' malarky.

QuoteNot exactly, Arantor. "They" (whoever you mean) did not really pursue openness - sure, people usually agreed with it, but did usually not pursue it. They usually don't know how. And I understand that - after 10 years of proprietary mindset and culture of closeness-by-design. (by design, not randomly, not temporary, not any other way)

Ah, you misread me. I never said they pursued openness. I said they pursued the title of openness. Something far less noble. They don't know how, they don't know what openness is. Their actions have shown this, time and again, that they don't understand what openness means. They just act in a way that seems to work towards having the title.

Much like one can have a certification in something and have no idea on its practical applications (like a number of my fellow Zend Certified Engineers would seem to be)

QuoteWhat you see today, is not "they" and "their openness". There is no such thing, most of the time.
It's a confused number of people, taken over by a corporation and its management, and a project in agony, under that name. It doesn't know where it is, and it's unfixable.

You and I disagree on this. There is a 'they'. They can claim the title of openness and by the letter of the lay of things, there is an argument they might even be right. But to call something open and for it to be open are two distinctly different things.

I have been part of events for some time now. The moments I have re-entered their stream of things I became part of the fabric of those events. I am only too aware that what they have, they truly believe is open. They believe they have reached a place that they can call open. And if you look at it from their perspective, you might be able to see why they have come to that conclusion. They're wrong, in every conceivable sense, but you can at least see why they have the position they do.

Openness is not a state they understand. It is one that we chose not to embrace at the present time in strict deed, but I would argue that even our closed state is more open than their self-anointed 'open state' and that when a final point of judgement is made, when history looks back on us, our (Nao and myself) calls for openness and the apparent discrepancy with our own actions (the apparent hypocrisy of calling for openness when being closed ourselves), I believe that our decision will ultimately be vindicated.

Arantor remembers the troll last summer that I refused to ban, on the grounds that despite his insults, he had a point of sorts and a valid opinion.

It's late and I'm pontificating, but I think you're largely preaching to the converted. We know their definition of openness is a bit skewed, as is their definition of compromise. Their institution is damaged, warped, yes. Unfixable? I don't know. It feels like it might as well be.