[Koha] Defining community participation [was: Koha demo links on koha.org]

[Ben Ide]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Owen Leonard <oleonard at myacpl.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Define "available." As we've already heard, LibLime has said that they
> would not open up a public git repo. That means that the Koha
> community can't interact with their developments in the way they do
> with everyone else's.

Everyone except for the one's I mentioned (below), you mean.

> As has been pointed out frequently before, making code available by
> releasing a tarball just doesn't count. That's not participation.

You have pointed that out frequently.  Very frequently.

Could you tell me why tarball doesn't count?  To me, it looks like the
code is out there, even if it's not in the format you want it to be.
What are the rules for participation?  Does everyone prefer git?  I've
read about a few other flavors that people prefer.

>> Actually, with perhaps two exceptions, all the discussion off that
>> thread can be summed up with "Thanks. Could you use Git, please?"
>
> In other words, "Could you return to the kind of participation you
> were doing just a few months ago?"

Yes, before they took on a new client's requests.  But you know that
already.  Is this more about impatience in TKC or one company's
commitment?

>> 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?
>
> HLT. Horowhenua Library Trust. http://www.library.org.nz. And neither
> software.coop or HLT has posted demos of non-public versions of Koha
> on koha.org. Neither are advertising a non-public version of Koha
> using the Koha name.

But that's not really the issue, is it?  This is about doing a
"find/delete" on anything that says "supported by LibLime."

>> Thank you.  But as it's been said before, corporations have the right
>> to profit and programmers have the right to get paid.
>
> It's amazing that we're still having this conversation. Who around
> here isn't getting paid? All of us, not least of all LibLime, are
> proof that participation--real participation--in an open source
> project can be sustainable and profitable.

It is amazing that we are having this conversation.  I thought
everyone had moved on with their lives until you started this thread.

And for the record, I haven't earned one thin dime off of Koha.  Does
that make my statements and concerns irrelevant?

>> 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.
>
> It's not. It's beneficial. LibLime knows this very well, as they use
> the tool every day to support their customers. This is a non-issue for
> this subject.

I never claimed it wasn't beneficial or made guesses about who knew it
or not.  Here, I'll ask again:  Is git easy to use while you are
developing code or is it an added step?  If it's an added step, why
not wait until the work is done?

Thanks,
-- Ben