Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Re: Standard source code header and php Documentor

[Dave Hall]

David Kelly <address@hidden> wrote:

> I totally agree with what Dan has written here.  I think that the 
> phpgw 
> community has got off on the wrong foot with these guys through a 
> number of 
> misunderstandings.  This sort of miscommunication happens all the 
> time in 
> written communication due to the lack of the non-verbal aspects of 
> communication (and with english not been a first language it can 
> make it even 
> harder).  

This may be the case, but there has also been other discussions had off
list.

> 
> Personally, I see Probiz and other commercial companies as been 
> incredibly 
> important to phpgw and embracing these companies will cause phpgw 
> to develop 
> into something much bigger and better than what can be achieved 
> without.  

I have no issue with businesses being involved in the phpgw - as you
know I encourage it.

> The 
> more full-time paid developers etc that we have working on phpgw 
> the better - 
> and if these developers are self-employed individuals, volunteers, 
> or 
> developers working for a commerical organisation then who really 
> cares. 

I don't care if people are paid for their contributions or not.

> With 
> the one proviso, that all copyrights are assigned to FSF and all 
> CVS commits 
> are stuff the community wants.  

Yes, I agree, but deciding to work on the API when you have demonstrated
a lack of knowledge, then expecting automatic commit acess to the API is
not real smart in my book.

> Probiz seem to be happy with both 
> of these 
> points and so I can't see what the problem is - in fact I can't 
> see why we 
> are not cheering them on! :)

If we were pulling in the same direction then I would cheering them on.

> 
> Regards
> -- 
> David Kelly
> Zeald Ltd
> 
> E-Centre - Massey University
> PO Box 102-904
> North Shore Mail Centre
> Auckland
> New Zealand
> http://www.zeald.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:01, Dan Kuykendall wrote:
> > Christian Böttger wrote:
> > > G'day!
> > >
> > >>They don't want communicate with the community.
> > >
> > > That's plain wrong, otherwise noone would write anything here 
> from our
> > > company.
> >
> > I have seen emails on this list from the probiz people, so I 
> dont know
> > why you would say they are not communicating with us.
> >
> > >>They have a business plan for what they receive money.
> > >
> > > What's wrong about it?
> >
> > I second that. Whats wrong about making money with Free Software.
> > Stallman repeats over an over "Free as in Freedom, not as in beer".
> >
> > >>that what they do it's not a community project. They want
> > >>that the "OSS developers" agree with their "commercial" product.
> > >
> > > Not correct. That is your interpretation, not our intention. Our
> > > intention is to give as much work back into the phpGW project as
> > > possible. It's of course up to the phpGW project whether they 
> accept the
> > > work or not.
> >
> > No problem here.
> >
> > >>We ask them, to spend some money for development to the
> > >>developers, but they don't want. When I want i found a way.
> > >
> > > Oh well. AFAIK someone (I don't know whether is was you, 
> honestly) asked
> > > just to pass on most of the money. This is not possible. But, 
> e.g. we had
> > > open job positions. People could have applied. And: in the 
> case parts of
> > > our work go into the phpGW community: then "money" in form of 
> work has
> > > found it's way into the project; which it wouldn't otherwise. 
> But you may
> > > accept or not that we simply can't just take orders.
> >
> > Money is not going to normally be "donated" in such a fashion as 
> writing> a check to us (thru the FSF). Its almost always done by 
> way of having
> > paid employees write code and assign the copyrights to us (thru 
> the FSF).
> >
> > >>Greetings to probiz. Follow OSS rules and not YOUR COMMERCIAL
> > >>INTEREST
> >
> > I dont know what "rules" they have broken.
> >
> > > Please ask Richard Stallmann or anyone else from FSF or FSF 
> Europe about
> > > OSS and business. From all their statements, that's not a 
> contradiction> > at all. Commercial companies *must* follow 
> commercial interests,
> > > otherwise they will cease to exist. OSS (the FSF prefers "Free 
> Software")> > is about the accessability of source code and the 
> freedom of the *user*
> > > of the software to do what they want with the source. It' not 
> about not
> > > making money, and it's not anti-business.
> >
> > Correct, and in fact for-profit corporations can actually be held
> > accountable by law for NOT trying to be profitable for the 
> shareholders.>
> > > But well, if this opionion uttered by Reiner is the opinion of the
> > > majority of the contributors and the core team, and all agree 
> that they
> > > don't want any code or contribution from our company at all 
> and will not
> > > have a look at further (code or other) contributions, well 
> then just say
> > > it and we will be off. Mind you that the GPL would not stop 
> anyone from
> > > forking of a new project under a different name.
> >
> > Its certainly not an opinion shared by me.
> >
> > > We are well prepared and much in favour of assigning any phpGW 
> related> > code from us to the FSF or FSF Europe, whichever may be 
> the correct
> > > address. That my count as "following OSS rules".
> >
> > This follows the rules as I see it.
> > The only "rules" we should hold are to not have our CVS updated with
> > stuff the community doesnt want, and to have copyrights assigned for
> > anything put in CVS.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
>

dave.hall.vcf
Description: Card for <dave.hall@mbox.com.au>