Replies inline.. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we've gotten off track here a bit.
Maybe not too far off. :-) The entire issue with the links devolves to the continued silence by LL to any requests; even those by all standards reasonable.
So, if LibLime promised to make all their code available after customer signoff, would this reduce all of this discussion to a footnote in Koha's history? Because this promise has been made on more than one occasion.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote: From Ben, with snips:
You'll quote someone who spoke with Josh in a telephone conversation, but not Josh's direct response to the list?
Josh is a subscriber to this list and thus is free to correct any mis-quotes of himself. I would encourage him to do so. I do not think for a moment that anyone on this list desires to mis-quote Josh. On the contrary, I think we would all desire most sincerely to very clearly understand Josh and his present course of action.
To what advantage? Why should he send another missive here when all have been content to ignore the previous ones?
By the looks of the length of the thread referenced I would say that Josh's previous "missive" was not ignored by any stretch of the imagination. Rather it looks like Josh failed to follow up with clarification to his "missive." This is the very issue of "continued silence" which we now experience with requests which, again, are reasonable by any standard.
Actually, with perhaps two exceptions, all the discussion off that thread can be summed up with "Thanks. Could you use Git, please?"
Perhaps you could request this of Josh or encourage the individual at your organization who is responsible for your relationship to LL to request it of Josh?
Again, what on earth would be the advantage of that? To me, it just seems like a waste of a busy person's time.
I would expect that it would be obvious that the customers of LL are in the absolute best position to bring legitimate pressure to bear on LL to reengage with the community. The investment of "a busy person's time" to achieve the re-engagement of LL in the community would be anything but a "waste." To the contrary, it would probably rank among the greater contributions to the Koha project. (No one denies the large contribution LL has made to Koha nor despises it. The complaint is with how they have handled themselves in the light of other business pressures.)
Let me ask a very basic question, which I think is at the heart of this matter. How is LibLime's actions different from those of software.coop, the work done for the Learning Access Institute, and HTL? All have code that, so far as I can tell, have not been released back to TKC,* despite open source licensing agreements. What makes this stink bigger? *If I'm wrong, please correct me. Lard knows I frequently am. :-)
It is my humble opinion that your organization could very possibly be in the best position to make such a valuable contribution to this community.
Thank you. But as it's been said before, corporations have the right to profit and programmers have the right to get paid. I have another question that maybe someone can help me with. I've been reading a bit about git and it seems like a real pain to use while you're developing code. Afterwards, when you're writing it, it seems like a decent tool for dissemination, but before you're done it seems really cumbersome. Is there something I'm missing? http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html#share Thanks, -- Ben