[Koha] Foundation conversation

[Joann Ransom]

Hi all,

My understanding is that we are talking about 3 different 'products' here:
Koha : with a vibrant and productive community of users and developers, and
2 forks developed by LibLime/PTFS: LEK and Harley.

Its not about versions of Koha folks; LEK and Harley are forks. They are not
Koha. The Harley fork has the potential to be incorporated back into Koha
but LEK is a straight fork.

I'm not clear what the problem is that needs solving with regards to Koha.
The Koha community is functioning effectively and development continues. The
problem we used to have was solved with the Koha community moving to
koha-community.org

I think PTFS have to decide whether they want to join the community or not.
It could happen quite easily if they have a mind to. Releasing the Harley
code was a very definite and positive step in the right direction of
bringing the PTFS Harley fork back into Koha.

Koha doesn't actually need PTFS or the koha.org domain name. If  PTFS see no
value in joining the Koha community then I see no problem at all in Koha and
PTFS just going our separate ways: live and let live. Harley and LEK could
exist as perfectly valid LMS products developed and supported by PTFS. But
they are not Koha.

Cheers Jo.



On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 2:32 AM, ed c <terrapin44 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> --- On Sat, 10/16/10, Chris Cormack <chris at bigballofwax.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> > I think you are confusing the issues ed. Complaining
> > about bad behaviour is not the same as caring enough
> > about a domain the project no longers uses, to allow
> > for a stacked foundation.
>
> I am not the one that said "used to care about" the assets when it is clear
> that members of the community keep referring to it. It is not only the
> domain, recently there were complaints about a logo. The Koha logo is an
> asset registered to PTFS in the United States and other countries according
> to Horowhenua Library Trust Koha Subcommittee report dated April 29, 2010
> [1]. Thus, if they want to change or make a different logo (asset), at least
> in the US, they have the right. It is their asset. So, no I am not confusing
> the issues.
>
> > As for the fork, you have it wrong too, there are
> > most definitely some forks, Koha is not one of them.
>
> I probably wasn't clear what I meant about forks but it really isn't of
> importance. So, point taking, and accepted.
>
>
> > I don't see why we should have to rename, how about
> > we just keep using koha-community.org and working
> > on Koha.
>
> As long as their are two (or more) versions of Koha that are different
> without different names, it is going to lead to confusion by people that
> might consider using the software (which was my scenario 1 below). I didn't
> say you had to rename it, I said that is the only way I see this confusion
> will not continue to exist and get worse - which incidentally was a concept
> someone else originally brought up on this list, not me.
>
>
> > Ill make you a deal, i won't mention koha.org again
> > if that will assuage your worry that I want it back
> > enough to rush in a foundation with special treatment
> > for one company.
>
> I am not sure what you mean. You already said you don't want to rush this.
>
> > Chris
>
> Edward
>
> [1]
> http://koha-community.org/hlt-koha-committee-report-on-discussions-with-ptfs/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list  http://koha-community.org
> Koha at lists.katipo.co.nz
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>



-- 
Joann Ransom RLIANZA
Head of Libraries,
Horowhenua Library Trust.

*Q: Why is this email three sentences or less?
A: http://three.sentenc.es*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/attachments/20101017/a7ba548d/attachment.htm