Re: Tango

[Tom Howard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Peter,

Peter Simons wrote:
> You know what? With all these problems the GNU Autoconf
> Macro Archive has been having lately, I was wondering
> whether I should switch distributions too. I mean, this
> really is a fucked up place, and I don't see how I could
> possibly salvage that.
> 
> So I entered "autoconf macro" in Google and scrolled down
> past dozens of hits on my own site, which doesn't help me,
> and at last found a different archive, that really rocked.


Third link actually.  Also try searching "ac-archive".  Since that is
what both projects are called,  those results could be classed as more
authorative.

> Man, I thought, I'm sure lucky I can give this maintenance
> business up and let someone else do the work.
> 
> I've practically reconfigured my system to install their
> stuff rather than my crap, and guess what? Holy shit, I
> thought, I almost forgot about checking their licensing
> policies first.
> 
> So I check that out ... you won't believe me anyway, here,
> look for yourself:
> 
>   http://ac-archive.sourceforge.net/Installed_Packages/peti_with_dmalloc.html
> 
> That's one kick-ass macro, because I have written that. It's
> flattering to see they carry it. But is there licensing
> information? Hell no!
> 
> I am terrified. After what I've just experienced ... phew,
> I've become pretty sensitive on that spot now. Perhaps the
> license is in the source code?
> 
>   http://ac-archive.sourceforge.net/Installed_Packages/peti_with_dmalloc.m4
> 
> Uh oh.
> 
> What now? Let's look at the front page. That leads us to:
> 
>   http://ac-archive.sourceforge.net/copyright.html
> 
> And guess what? That's ALL WRONG!
> 
> I have licensed this macro under an all-permissive license.
> Yet, the archive on sf.net seems to say it was licensed
> under GPL with the Autoconf exception. I mean, that's real
> nasty, because the sf.net archive is actually distributing
> that macro under more restrictive terms than I am.
> 
> I've checked, and there are DOZENS of other cases.
> 
> So what do we do now?
> 
> I would really love to have my macro distributed under the
> same license I licensed it. And I guess, the dozens of other
> macro authors who are in the same position would like that
> too.

Are you insane?  No I'm serious.  You know that Guido syncs from your
cvs to try both archives in sync.  You know that the licence information
has only just changed.  You know that your changes to the cvs layout
would have broken Guido's syncing scripts.  What makes you think that
once things are fixed the licensing information wont be synced as well?

> Perhaps this is a good occasion to put old quarrels aside,
> Guido. I know what kind of storm breaks loose when people
> notice what your archive is doing. I really sympathize. I
> would like to offer you my help.

What exactly is his archive doing which is so bad?  From what I can see
his is providing the services users need that up until very recently you
have not (such as make install and some sort of versioning).

> Yes, it comes unexpected, but what the hell. You may know
> that the archive on Savannah does have _all_ those macros
> you have too, and it does have proper licensing attribution
> for the vast majority of macros, because that's what I have
> been busy doing the last few days, so ... since it is
> already THERE, nicely formatted and heavily edited for
> consistency, why don't you just copy my whole repository
> over and distribute it as yours? Under your name and all?
> 
> Come on, it is free software after all! ;-)

At no point does it come across that Guido is trying to take credit for
other peoples work, so it is wrong of you to imply it.

Can you please play to ball and not the man?  I have no problem with you
disagreeing with my ideas or those of others around here, but yesterday
you attached me personally and now today you do the same to Guido.  This
is not acceptable behaviour.

Cheers,

- --
Tom Howard

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x433B299A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB9wecw1G4ZUM7KZoRAoyGAJ4zQ+i+iHd1Gn+hUHlJHALW/HjWGQCcDOY9
ZCVTS7P6PwyBJ3ATnNxOx5M=
=4jVc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

tomhoward.vcf
Description: Vcard