| *** Parts: AlexM600 (~Miranda@192.109.140.36) | 00:17 | |
| *** Quits: mariusvw (~mariusvw@dhcp-077-248-080-122.chello.nl) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | 00:52 | |
| *** Joins: mariusvw (~mariusvw@dhcp-077-248-080-122.chello.nl) | 00:52 | |
| *** Joins: HerVonW (~mariusvw@dhcp-077-248-080-122.chello.nl) | 00:57 | |
| *** Quits: mariusvw (~mariusvw@dhcp-077-248-080-122.chello.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | 00:58 | |
| *** HerVonW is now known as mariusvw | 00:58 | |
| *** Joins: HerVonW (~mariusvw@dhcp-077-248-080-122.chello.nl) | 01:02 | |
| *** Quits: mariusvw (~mariusvw@dhcp-077-248-080-122.chello.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | 01:04 | |
| *** HerVonW is now known as mariusvw | 01:04 | |
| *** Joins: kirillka (~Miranda@195.242.142.17) | 01:08 | |
| *** Quits: siebrand (~beis@sm.xs4all.nl) () | 01:19 | |
| *** Joins: Cupertino (~Cupez@unaffiliated/cupertino) | 02:32 | |
| *** Joins: giallu (~giallu@fedora/giallu) | 02:35 | |
| *** Joins: Al_Chapone (~chatzilla@ATuileries-152-1-38-202.w82-123.abo.wanadoo.fr) | 03:27 | |
| *** Quits: mariusvw (~mariusvw@dhcp-077-248-080-122.chello.nl) (Quit: pff :-)) | 03:34 | |
| *** Quits: kirillka (~Miranda@195.242.142.17) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | 03:35 | |
| *** Joins: kirillka (~Miranda@195.242.142.17) | 03:37 | |
| *** Quits: kirillka (~Miranda@195.242.142.17) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | 04:08 | |
| *** Joins: kirillka (~Miranda@195.242.142.17) | 04:11 | |
| *** Quits: Al_Chapone (~chatzilla@ATuileries-152-1-38-202.w82-123.abo.wanadoo.fr) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | 04:36 | |
| *** Joins: Al_Chapone (~chatzilla@ATuileries-152-1-25-64.w82-123.abo.wanadoo.fr) | 04:39 | |
| *** Joins: tavasti (~tavasti@217.152.202.220) | 05:04 | |
| *** Quits: dhx1 (~anonymous@c122-107-170-247.eburwd5.vic.optusnet.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | 05:28 | |
| *** Joins: dhx1 (~anonymous@c122-107-170-247.eburwd5.vic.optusnet.com.au) | 05:34 | |
| *** Joins: Rixie (~Rixie@0x4dd7390e.adsl.cybercity.dk) | 06:29 | |
| *** Quits: Al_Chapone (~chatzilla@ATuileries-152-1-25-64.w82-123.abo.wanadoo.fr) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.10/20100914125854]) | 06:35 | |
| dhx1 | Am I the only person receiving multiple duplicate emails from Robert? | 08:08 |
|---|---|---|
| nuclear_eclipse | no | 08:14 |
| dhx1 | good :) | 08:27 |
| *** Joins: paulr (~a@212.85.5.19) | 08:36 | |
| paulr | i'm wondering whether to resist or join in | 08:36 |
| dhx1 | :) | 08:37 |
| paulr | you recall a month ago discussing what would be involved to change licnese? ;p | 08:38 |
| paulr | maybe now's a good time to discuss! | 08:38 |
| dhx1 | CC0! | 08:42 |
| dhx1 | :) | 08:42 |
| paulr | cc0? | 08:43 |
| dhx1 | basically some legal text from creative commons to place work in the public domain | 08:43 |
| dhx1 | but in some countries that isn't possible, so the legal text tries to work around that :) | 08:44 |
| paulr | can you remember date? | 08:44 |
| dhx1 | ? | 08:44 |
| paulr | for our licensing chat | 08:44 |
| dhx1 | 2-3 months ago | 08:45 |
| *** Joins: mantisbt_64743 (ca58ed87@gateway/web/freenode/ip.202.88.237.135) | 08:47 | |
| paulr | btw dhx it's not that simple | 08:57 |
| paulr | soap api in some places has copy/paste code blocks from core | 08:57 |
| paulr | which could be written by someone else | 08:58 |
| paulr | :) | 08:58 |
| dhx1 | the licensing thing is stupid anyhow | 08:58 |
| paulr | I personally want to relicense mantis | 08:58 |
| paulr | everytime we have this debate | 08:58 |
| dhx1 | at least in Australia, courts look at the amount of infringement (accidental copy+paste of 10 lines of code vs ripping off 20k LoC), the cost of the 'victim', the amount gained by the infringer, etc | 08:59 |
| paulr | I think the best way forward is: | 09:00 |
| dhx1 | at the purest form you'd have to worry about what constitutes a derivative work (is it even possible to rewrite code to change the license?) | 09:00 |
| paulr | a) attempt to contact everyone and tranfer copyright to | 09:00 |
| paulr | something/one | 09:00 |
| paulr | b) make a list of what we dont have copyright on | 09:00 |
| dhx1 | someone might have contributed GPLv2 code which is then rewritten out into code with a new license | 09:00 |
| paulr | c) dual license the code | 09:00 |
| paulr | that's fine though? | 09:00 |
| dhx1 | not sure | 09:01 |
| dhx1 | the rewritten code would be replicating the existing code and hence could be a derivative work? | 09:01 |
| dhx1 | or other parts of the codebase may have become "infected" with the older code by their reliance (or copy/paste) of parts of the older code | 09:02 |
| paulr | ok right | 09:04 |
| paulr | there's probablyabout 20 people max we'd need to contact to do 90%+ | 09:04 |
| paulr | esp. if you split manual + code + language files | 09:04 |
| *** Joins: rolfkleef (~rolf@82-69-198-84.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk) | 09:08 | |
| dhx1 | yep | 09:11 |
| *** Joins: daryn (~daryn@h158.249.190.173.static.ip.windstream.net) | 09:14 | |
| paulr | from what I can tell, we'd be better off having core code under a different license | 09:19 |
| paulr | even if it's only to stop debates for which we dont know outcome | 09:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | BSD/MIT license and be done with it all | 09:21 |
| dhx1 | why BSD/MIT instead of public domain though? | 09:22 |
| killefiz | public domain doesn't really exist outside of the united states. | 09:22 |
| nuclear_eclipse | because BSD/MIT at the very least prevents someone from ripping off your project wholesale and saying they did it themself; public domain does not protect you from that | 09:22 |
| nuclear_eclipse | killefiz: on the contrary, public domain doesn't exist *inside* the US | 09:22 |
| dhx1 | I'm not so sure I care about someone claiming it as their own | 09:23 |
| dhx1 | it's pretty obvious where it came from (mantisbt.org) | 09:23 |
| nuclear_eclipse | because US copyright law grants copyright privileges de facto to any work created in the US | 09:23 |
| dhx1 | killefiz: CC0 caters for that by providing legal text to effectively remove copyright protections | 09:24 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: the point is that with BSD/MIT license, they at least have to acknowledeg that you were the original author | 09:24 |
| giallu | dhx1, solution is simple, we're going to rewrite everything in the long term. start by adding the BSD license to all new files and wait ;) | 09:24 |
| nuclear_eclipse | giallu: not possible if those new files rely on GPL code... | 09:25 |
| dhx1 | nuclear_eclipse: only if they play by the rules, and if they don't... who is going to chase them up over attribution? | 09:25 |
| giallu | nuclear_eclipse, since when? | 09:26 |
| giallu | BSD code can surely use GPL stuff | 09:26 |
| dhx1 | giallu: the patches would be considered derivative works of the original and hence maintain the original copyright | 09:26 |
| giallu | the resulting license is GPL of course | 09:26 |
| nuclear_eclipse | giallu: that's the whole point of GPL, you can't link against GPL code without using a GPL license | 09:26 |
| giallu | but new code is BSD | 09:26 |
| giallu | when everything is new, BAM! welcome in BSD | 09:27 |
| nuclear_eclipse | no, that would be breaching the copyright of anyone who contributed to the GPL code | 09:27 |
| giallu | no | 09:27 |
| giallu | I'm not talking about relicensing | 09:27 |
| giallu | I'm talking about new code | 09:27 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I know that | 09:27 |
| giallu | anyway | 09:28 |
| giallu | if someone wants to chase all contributors for relicensing, be my guest ;) | 09:28 |
| giallu | I'm okay with BSD | 09:28 |
| dhx1 | it won't really work IMO | 09:28 |
| dhx1 | too many people, too many years of development | 09:28 |
| dhx1 | I'm happy with BSD too, but would prefer no license at all (public domain) to prevent license compatibility issues from ever arising again | 09:30 |
| paulr | giallu: i've already made a list | 09:30 |
| paulr | a month ago ;p | 09:30 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: using something like BSD *would* prevent license compatibility issues from ever arinsing again, it basically permits everything as long as you maintain the copyright attributions | 09:31 |
| giallu | but please note. we're talking about our API. If I write a completely new Issue class, make it BSD | 09:33 |
| giallu | then everything else _uses_ that new code | 09:33 |
| giallu | that's GPL code using BSD code | 09:33 |
| nuclear_eclipse | giallu: yes, that's correct | 09:34 |
| nuclear_eclipse | but if that class uses a GPL API at all, that's breaking the GPL copyright.... | 09:34 |
| nuclear_eclipse | either way, I think it would be easier to email everyone requesting permission to change the license that to try and incrementally rewrite the codebase to use BSD license | 09:35 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: can I? :) | 09:36 |
| paulr | plssssssss | 09:36 |
| dhx1 | http://www.freebsdnews.net/2009/01/21/software-licensing-gpl-bsd-public-domain/ | 09:36 |
| dhx1 | post it to the developer mailing list before emailing anyone privately | 09:37 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: what dhx1 said | 09:37 |
| dhx1 | it'd work better to invite people to contribute to the mailing list discussion rather than ask them directly | 09:37 |
| *** Quits: giallu (~giallu@fedora/giallu) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | 09:37 | |
| dhx1 | nuclear_eclipse: BSD is still "viral" in the sense that people forking the software need to maintain the original restrictions | 09:38 |
| *** Joins: giallu (~giallu@fedora/giallu) | 09:38 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: but the only restriction is to maintain the copyright attributions | 09:39 |
| * giallu got disconnected, sorry | 09:40 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | BSD has long been seen as the "most free" license because it allows you to o anything you want with the code as long as you maintain that copyright statement | 09:40 |
| dhx1 | nuclear_eclipse: yep, one could add extra restrictions to their modified code | 09:40 |
| nuclear_eclipse | which is exactly why businesses like BSD code more than GPL code, because you can link against BSD code without needing to license your own code as BSD, and you can redistribute BSD code without having to make the sources available, and you can use it and change however you like as long as you keep the original copyright statements in tact, but you don't even need to let people know that you're using that BSD code because you don't have to give source code with your porject | 09:42 |
| dhx1 | nuclear_eclipse: the problem would be people copying 4 lines of code from a BSD project into a project with a different license as those 4 lines of code would need to bear the BSD license text | 09:44 |
| dhx1 | AFAIK | 09:44 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: so what? when are four lines of code ever useful without the context of the parent file/codebase? | 09:44 |
| nuclear_eclipse | if you want a function, you copy the function wholesael along with the license header, big deal? | 09:44 |
| dhx1 | it would be a lot of maintenance for another project to keep track of which functions have which license | 09:46 |
| dhx1 | every time code is copy+pasted, the license text would need to go with it | 09:46 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: I really think you're splitting hairs | 09:47 |
| dhx1 | and if someone modifies the copy+pasted code later such that it no longer resembles the original code, does the BSD license still apply? | 09:47 |
| nuclear_eclipse | it's really not a lot of maintenance, we do it on mantis just fine... | 09:47 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: of course it does; it only goes away if you rewrite the code from scratch | 09:48 |
| nuclear_eclipse | otherwise all of those modifications are based on the original copyright code, and wouldn't be possible without that original code | 09:48 |
| dhx1 | my point really is that uncertainty still exists with the BSD license | 09:48 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: I think you're making uncertainty out of nothing | 09:49 |
| dhx1 | there is no black and white answer to whether something is infringing | 09:49 |
| *** Quits: kirillka (~Miranda@195.242.142.17) (Quit: kirillka) | 09:50 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: I could probably come up with just as many uncertainties about CC0 if I wanted to, especially given the US's penchant for not liking the public domain | 09:51 |
| *** Quits: daryn (~daryn@h158.249.190.173.static.ip.windstream.net) (Quit: Ex-Chat) | 09:54 | |
| *** Joins: daryn (~daryn@h158.249.190.173.static.ip.windstream.net) | 09:56 | |
| dhx1 | nuclear_eclipse: I guess CC0 specifically grants all moral rights of the original author (ie. it allows anyone to assign copyright of the work to themselves) | 09:57 |
| paulr | i've got an idea | 09:57 |
| dhx1 | plus it has a fallback mechanism in case any of the clauses are struck down in a court as being invalid | 09:57 |
| dhx1 | (in the event of it not being possible to waive certain rights) | 09:58 |
| paulr | in terms of my nusoap contributions | 09:58 |
| paulr | I'm only happy for them to be relicensed under any license agreement that follows the principles of the following license agreement "Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument." | 10:03 |
| paulr | :) | 10:03 |
| dhx1 | not quite legalese enough for my liking :p | 10:03 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: so MIT license? | 10:03 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: maybe even MIT would be more satisfactory to you than BSD? | 10:04 |
| dhx1 | nuclear_eclipse: I still don't like clauses like "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in | 10:05 |
| dhx1 | all copies or substantial portions of the Software." | 10:05 |
| dhx1 | "substantial" is vague and undefined | 10:05 |
| nuclear_eclipse | sigh | 10:05 |
| * daryn thinks 'who cares' | 10:05 | |
| dhx1 | there is no specification of how and when the copyright notice shall be included | 10:05 |
| nuclear_eclipse | so if you hate everything that isn't public domain, why do you contribute to mantis? :P | 10:05 |
| dhx1 | daryn: exactly why I like public domain :p | 10:06 |
| daryn | but that's you caring | 10:06 |
| dhx1 | it's more just a case of pushing it towards a "who cares" attitude ;) | 10:06 |
| nuclear_eclipse | I care about getting credit for what I've worked on, and not allowing people to take credit for what I've done | 10:07 |
| dhx1 | and making it easier for people to reuse code without having to understand and adhere to viral licenses | 10:07 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: BSD isn't viral though | 10:07 |
| nuclear_eclipse | neither is MIT | 10:07 |
| nuclear_eclipse | having to maintain copyright of code you use isn't viral | 10:08 |
| *** Joins: leetcode_70058 (d53c7df8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.213.60.125.248) | 10:08 | |
| dhx1 | nuclear_eclipse: derivative works have to bear the BSD license header though? | 10:08 |
| leetcode_70058 | Hi | 10:08 |
| *** leetcode_70058 is now known as Spk_ | 10:08 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: anything that uses that code doesn't have to be BSD licensed though | 10:08 |
| Spk_ | anyone can help me with mantis + remote svn? | 10:08 |
| dhx1 | nuclear_eclipse: right, so it solves the problem of linking... but not of copy+pasting code from MantisBT into another PHP project (for example) | 10:09 |
| nuclear_eclipse | GPL is viral because anything that links against GPL code must itself be GPL licensed | 10:09 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: who the hell would copy paste only a small part of our code without expecting to give us credit? | 10:09 |
| dhx1 | I understand why you need BSD if you want to maintain the attribution clause | 10:09 |
| nuclear_eclipse | Spk_: "Just Ask!" | 10:10 |
| Spk_ | jejeje | 10:10 |
| dhx1 | I personally don't see the need for attribution given that you can just point people to git.mantisbt.org where they can see your contributions | 10:11 |
| dhx1 | then you can point to other projects copying your code | 10:11 |
| Spk_ | i didn't know how start... checkin.php is not on the same server that svn :S | 10:11 |
| nuclear_eclipse | Spk_: you don't need to call checkin.php directly | 10:11 |
| Spk_ | i follow google, and search a "plugin" or anything, but without lucky | 10:11 |
| Spk_ | xD | 10:11 |
| Spk_ | (sorry about my bad english) | 10:12 |
| dhx1 | is the attribution argument one of ensuring that other people don't attempt to "cheat"? | 10:12 |
| Spk_ | mmm i dont understand | 10:13 |
| nuclear_eclipse | Spk_: sec | 10:13 |
| Spk_ | this is my mantis version: | 10:13 |
| Spk_ | Versión de MantisBT1.2.3 Versión de esquema183 | 10:13 |
| nuclear_eclipse | Spk_: http://leetcode.net/blog/2009/01/integrating-git-svn-with-mantisbt/ | 10:13 |
| nuclear_eclipse | http://leetcode.net/blog/2009/10/detailed-integration-of-subversion-in-mantisbt/ | 10:13 |
| Spk_ | thanks nuclear_eclipse | 10:14 |
| Spk_ | other thing is that our svn are in a different port | 10:14 |
| Spk_ | this is important? | 10:14 |
| nuclear_eclipse | shouldn't be | 10:15 |
| Spk_ | ok, i try | 10:15 |
| Spk_ | million of thanks! | 10:15 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: the point of using a license that maintains the copyright attribution, and BSD in particular, is to have legal recourse if someone redistributes your code with their name on it instead of yours | 10:16 |
| nuclear_eclipse | akin to saying that somebody can't just take an obscure artist's painting, and put their own signature on it and sell it as if they created it | 10:17 |
| dhx1 | I would have thought that concern is far outweighed by the popularity of the official source being superior to that of redistributors | 10:18 |
| nuclear_eclipse | they still have the right to sell and modify the painting, they just aren't allowed to say they created the work without also mentioning the original artist | 10:18 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: but that's not always the case | 10:18 |
| dhx1 | ie. people wouldn't see the distributor as being the author when a far more popular/known/authoritative source also claims ownership (with evidence strongly supporting these claims) | 10:19 |
| *** Parts: mantisbt_64743 (ca58ed87@gateway/web/freenode/ip.202.88.237.135) | 10:20 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | if someone takes mantis, renames it, improves on it in some fashion, but then removes all of our copyright attributions, and releases it as their own product, you've just been ripped off, but BSD would give you legal recourse | 10:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | versus public domain or CC0, where you can't do anything about it | 10:20 |
| nuclear_eclipse | other than whine | 10:20 |
| * giallu notes CC licenses are not for code, but content | 10:21 | |
| dhx1 | I guess the difference in opinion here is that I wouldn't really care if someone ripped it off (but I can see why you and many others do) | 10:21 |
| nuclear_eclipse | giallu: I believe CC0 is an exception to that | 10:21 |
| giallu | besides, dhx1, where that "substantial" claim comes from? cna't see that in http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html | 10:22 |
| nuclear_eclipse | giallu: MIT uses the "substantial" clause | 10:22 |
| dhx1 | giallu: was referring to MIT @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License | 10:22 |
| giallu | ah sorry ;) | 10:22 |
| giallu | missed the switch in my 9 minutes blackout | 10:23 |
| giallu | :) | 10:23 |
| nuclear_eclipse | bluh, I just realizzed that I've been using a font on my site that renders like ass on winxp | 10:23 |
| dhx1 | I contribute to MantisBT to encourage others to do likewise | 10:23 |
| dhx1 | and to expand, improve and test features developed for my own needs | 10:23 |
| nuclear_eclipse | and winxp accounts for >25% of my visitors... | 10:23 |
| dhx1 | perhaps others will see likewise and share their contributions in return (thus receiving further improvements and testing from others) | 10:24 |
| dhx1 | perhaps they'll take it, rename it and sell it under their own name | 10:24 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: similar motives for myself, but I want to be able to protect my name and credit of contribution when I release open source works | 10:24 |
| dhx1 | I understand where you're coming from | 10:25 |
| dhx1 | although I think the self-marketing potential of open source (putting it down on a CV) is unaffected by people ripping you off | 10:25 |
| dhx1 | thus it becomes more of a philosophical argument about fairness/respect for others | 10:26 |
| nuclear_eclipse | dhx1: perhaps so | 10:26 |
| paulr | HI've got an idea for a license agreement | 10:28 |
| nuclear_eclipse | oh no | 10:29 |
| paulr | it's short | 10:29 |
| paulr | you'll like it | 10:29 |
| nuclear_eclipse | that's better :P | 10:30 |
| dhx1 | :) | 10:30 |
| paulr | "You can do whatever you like with mantisbt.org code. If you want to remove this line, you need to pay 1000$ to mantisbt.org" | 10:30 |
| nuclear_eclipse | freenode needs to alias their `quiet` command as `muzzle` :P | 10:31 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: that's probably not legally enforceable..... | 10:31 |
| paulr | You have been unquieted on | 10:31 |
| paulr | that's also not a word | 10:31 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: who cares :0 | 10:31 |
| * nuclear_eclipse does | 10:31 | |
| paulr | you gonna sue me when I release your subversion plugin as mine? | 10:32 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yes, actually | 10:32 |
| paulr | have fun | 10:32 |
| paulr | :P | 10:32 |
| nuclear_eclipse | especially if you do it | 10:32 |
| nuclear_eclipse | anyone else I might bitch at first, but you, I have a lawyer on retainer just for you | 10:32 |
| paulr | cool | 10:33 |
| nuclear_eclipse | just for *things you do | 10:33 |
| paulr | wow | 10:33 |
| paulr | whats this php code do | 10:33 |
| paulr | :( | 10:33 |
| dhx1 | paulr: he's particularly concerned about the number of bugs you'd introduce :p | 10:33 |
| nuclear_eclipse | exactly, I don't want my code getting a bad rap | 10:33 |
| paulr | heh | 10:33 |
| paulr | did my language stuff break anything new? :) | 10:33 |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: I actually fixed your plugins language stuff whilst I was breaking stuff | 10:34 |
| dhx1 | too late, already posted to dailywtf.com :p | 10:34 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: I saw that in the commit message, but still haven't had time to investigate | 10:34 |
| paulr | you didn't fallback to english if german didn't exist in a plugin | 10:34 |
| nuclear_eclipse | maybe you broke the fallback, because I'm pretty sure it was working | 10:35 |
| paulr | indeed | 10:36 |
| paulr | it's possible I broke then fixed | 10:36 |
| paulr | however, I think it was broken before | 10:36 |
| paulr | could have been anything tbh | 10:36 |
| paulr | could have been anything tbh0 | 10:36 |
| paulr | :) | 10:36 |
| nuclear_eclipse | meh | 10:36 |
| nuclear_eclipse | one of the downsides of not speaking anything but english is not getting to properly understand and test the i18n/l10n stuffs | 10:37 |
| paulr | :) | 10:38 |
| *** Quits: Cupertino (~Cupez@unaffiliated/cupertino) (Quit: I give up...) | 11:01 | |
| *** Quits: Rixie (~Rixie@0x4dd7390e.adsl.cybercity.dk) (Quit: Rixie) | 11:32 | |
| *** Quits: giallu (~giallu@fedora/giallu) (Read error: Operation timed out) | 12:05 | |
| *** Quits: rolfkleef (~rolf@82-69-198-84.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk) (Quit: Leaving.) | 12:27 | |
| *** Joins: moto-moi (~hylke@cara.xs4all.nl) | 12:40 | |
| *** Joins: siebrand (~beis@sm.xs4all.nl) | 12:58 | |
| *** Joins: cobexer (~cobexer@88-117-61-118.adsl.highway.telekom.at) | 13:09 | |
| *** Quits: micahg (~micah@ubuntu/member/micahg) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) | 13:19 | |
| *** Quits: paulr (~a@212.85.5.19) () | 13:37 | |
| *** Joins: giallu (~giallu@fedora/giallu) | 14:04 | |
| *** Joins: micahg (~micah@66.146.192.96) | 14:34 | |
| *** Quits: micahg (~micah@66.146.192.96) (Changing host) | 14:34 | |
| *** Joins: micahg (~micah@ubuntu/member/micahg) | 14:34 | |
| *** Quits: micahg (~micah@ubuntu/member/micahg) (Remote host closed the connection) | 14:35 | |
| *** Joins: micahg (~micah@ubuntu/member/micahg) | 14:37 | |
| *** cobexer is now known as \cobexer|away | 15:10 | |
| *** Joins: paulr (~IceChat09@2001:470:9310:aaaa:290b:b5bc:41f0:9238) | 15:13 | |
| *** Joins: thraxisp (~thraxisp@24.139.16.154) | 15:22 | |
| thraxisp | hi daryn: I was just catching up on the redesign thread. | 15:36 |
| daryn | hello | 15:36 |
| thraxisp | Is there a plan for a smaller group to walk through the decision points and plan a way forward? | 15:37 |
| daryn | that's kinda what i was thinking. i wanted to put together an overview of how i see it working and then present that to core devs | 15:37 |
| daryn | i have a good bit in my head but haven't had time to put it all in writing yet | 15:38 |
| thraxisp | I may have time to help in the next 6 months. | 15:38 |
| daryn | awesome | 15:38 |
| paulr | thraxisp: you've been around for awhile | 15:39 |
| thraxisp | FWIW, my last web project was built from Zend/PHPTal/Doctrine (DBAL). | 15:39 |
| daryn | my local mods allow me to use both template system and standard html_api output side by side sometimes even in the same page (template system could = php ) | 15:39 |
| paulr | thraxisp: can you recall what prescience's view on licensing were? | 15:39 |
| thraxisp | I've been busy. | 15:40 |
| paulr | thraxisp: i.e. why mantis was gpl | 15:40 |
| daryn | thraxisp: i like the sound of that (DBAL)...i've looked at that myself but not enough to get very far | 15:40 |
| paulr | daryn: lang? | 15:41 |
| * paulr goes to cook | 15:41 | |
| daryn | paulr: BAH! | 15:42 |
| daryn | no time yet | 15:42 |
| daryn | sorry but last week of testing/bug fixes on mantis mods before go live | 15:42 |
| thraxisp | I suspect that GPLv2 was the most common thing around at the time. It opens the door to a number of distros like Debian. | 15:42 |
| thraxisp | Personally, I'm not sure about GPLv3. If it's not good enough for the linux kernel, there is a problem. | 15:43 |
| nuclear_eclipse | thraxisp: it's not a matter of "good enough" | 15:43 |
| nuclear_eclipse | it's a matter of Linus doesn't want to waste time tracking down 10,000 contributers to get explicit permissions to change from GPLv2-only to GPLv2/3+ | 15:44 |
| thraxisp | I thought that there were other issues (e.g., no DRM or compiled code) | 15:45 |
| nuclear_eclipse | thraxisp: last I heard, Linus said he would prefer GPL3, but that it would be impossible to get all those contributers to either agree or even respond to requests to relicense the kernel, so he just doesn't deem it necessary | 15:46 |
| thraxisp | ok | 15:46 |
| nuclear_eclipse | either way, we have an exponentially smaller set of contributers to deal with | 15:47 |
| nuclear_eclipse | and IMO, just moving to GPL3 doesn't really get us anywhere, because the normal GPL doesn't really "protect" webapps, which is why the AGPL was created | 15:48 |
| nuclear_eclipse | but tbh, while I used to be a fan of GPL/AGPL, I've actually had a change of opinion due to multiple incidents that have made me favor the BSD/MIT licenses instead | 15:50 |
| * thraxisp wishes there was a licenses for non-lawyers site | 16:03 | |
| * daryn wishes lawyers were required to write in plain $user_lang or face severe punishment | 16:05 | |
| *** Quits: pferate (~pferate@173-10-116-125-BusName-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | 16:23 | |
| *** Joins: pferate (~pferate@173-10-116-125-BusName-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) | 16:23 | |
| *** Joins: udait (~yeh@DSL212-235-111-166.bb.netvision.net.il) | 16:57 | |
| paulr | daryn: ok | 17:02 |
| paulr | thraxisp: do we still have any contact with presience? | 17:03 |
| daryn | paulr: ok what? | 17:03 |
| *** Parts: udait (~yeh@DSL212-235-111-166.bb.netvision.net.il) | 17:03 | |
| daryn | paulr: ok what? | 17:03 |
| paulr | [08:42.05] <daryn> no time yet | 17:03 |
| daryn | ah | 17:03 |
| thraxisp | paulr: Victor might have better contact info. I haven't tried in years. | 17:04 |
| daryn | sorry for the double post. moving too quickly between windows | 17:04 |
| daryn | thraxisp: what are you most interested in working on for redesign? | 17:05 |
| thraxisp | daryn: I looked at templates a long time ago, and have done some work in that area since. The issue if that most of the current APIs need rework. It's a huge job. | 17:07 |
| thraxisp | changing to a MVC style would be good. | 17:08 |
| *** Quits: siebrand (~beis@sm.xs4all.nl) () | 17:08 | |
| daryn | yes | 17:08 |
| daryn | i think we just have to do it incrementally to get there though | 17:09 |
| thraxisp | I'm wondering if a good approach would be to pick a subset of the pages, and re-implement it as a start, then add back the missing ones, while keeping some things static (e.g., plug-ins). | 17:11 |
| * thraxisp must let the dogd out | 17:11 | |
| daryn | possibly. thinking there are some logical ways to separate...most visible pages first, view all, bug view/edit, my view | 17:12 |
| daryn | then manage pages, config pages | 17:12 |
| thraxisp | sounds right | 17:21 |
| daryn | i'd like to see a nice ux for configs | 17:22 |
| giallu | config sucks :) | 17:23 |
| *** Quits: moto-moi (~hylke@cara.xs4all.nl) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | 17:27 | |
| thraxisp | With the MVC projects I've done, new pages come very quickly once the base structures are built and database access is established. | 17:29 |
| thraxisp | I was doing one functional page per day, once I had the database done. | 17:29 |
| daryn | yeah...i've wondered if we shouldn't just start a new repo for complete redesign... | 17:30 |
| daryn | giallu: Zend? :) | 17:30 |
| thraxisp | (with a PHPTal HTML template, CSS, and PHP implementation). | 17:30 |
| thraxisp | giallu: yes (Zend + PHPTal + Doctrine 1.x) | 17:30 |
| daryn | giallu: did you research that project skeleton link I sent you any more? | 17:31 |
| giallu | daryn, yeah. I had some complaints about it, but you know, not real issues. The point is, if we agree on using Zend, we can just start from the simple approach in their manual, then improve later | 17:34 |
| daryn | yeah. i just like that his skeleton had a bunch of stuff ready to go. like acl | 17:34 |
| giallu | if we are careful, I think we can also move to another license at the same time | 17:34 |
| * nuclear_eclipse throws his vote behind CodeIgniter :P | 17:35 | |
| daryn | :) | 17:35 |
| daryn | i've heard good things about that too. never used it though | 17:35 |
| giallu | like in. any new class we write must not use existing apis, no cut&paste from existing API. Existing API will be rewrote to use new classes | 17:36 |
| nuclear_eclipse | although tbh, there's quite a lot that Zend brings to the table that you'd have to implement from scratch in CI | 17:36 |
| daryn | wow...what happened to this list? support for a framework? no one screaming yet? | 17:36 |
| nuclear_eclipse | my biggest complaint with Zend is that it's MVC system seems really heavyweight | 17:36 |
| micahg | nuclear_eclipse: you can use Zend w/out MVC | 17:37 |
| nuclear_eclipse | yeah, but then what's the point? :P | 17:37 |
| daryn | yeah, there are certainly things I haven't liked in my initial attempts at using it. | 17:37 |
| giallu | nuclear_eclipse, possibly. but I bet when we have MVC, any MVC, changing to another implementation will be much faster | 17:37 |
| micahg | nuclear_eclipse: not recreating the individual components | 17:38 |
| thraxisp | nuclear_eclipse: I found that you don't need to use a lot of it. The problem seems to be that a lot of things are bound together and harder to use individually. | 17:38 |
| nuclear_eclipse | micahg: if we use any framework for anything, I'd rather just straight up use the framework for everything we possibly can rather than pulling in four different frameworks and three major libraries to get everything that Zend offers in one package | 17:39 |
| micahg | nuclear_eclipse: true, I was originally against MVC, but once you start using it, it's easier to make changes IMHO | 17:39 |
| * giallu notes in his HD some Mantis_Table_* classes extending Zend_Db_Table_Abstract | 17:39 | |
| nuclear_eclipse | micahg: yeah, my complaint is just in Zend's particular implementation of MVC; ie, I really like CI's lightweight, hands-off MVC system | 17:40 |
| giallu | cascading updates FTW | 17:40 |
| *** Quits: \cobexer|away (~cobexer@88-117-61-118.adsl.highway.telekom.at) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | 17:41 | |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse | 17:42 |
| paulr | so anyway | 17:42 |
| paulr | how do I fit my local git repo | 17:42 |
| paulr | ? | 17:42 |
| paulr | fix* | 17:42 |
| nuclear_eclipse | paulr: delete it and start over ;) | 17:42 |
| nuclear_eclipse | but seriously, you need to give me more info | 17:43 |
| paulr | well | 17:43 |
| paulr | I need to see what i've got stashed | 17:43 |
| paulr | can I do a diff of what's in a stash? | 17:43 |
| nuclear_eclipse | a stash is just a patch, so just show the stash item... | 17:44 |
| paulr | ok, how can i delete stash@{0} ? | 17:45 |
| nuclear_eclipse | a stashed item doesn't have any history associated with it, so you can apply it anywhere | 17:45 |
| nuclear_eclipse | `git help stash` | 17:45 |
| paulr | can i diff two stashes? | 17:47 |
| nuclear_eclipse | that doesn't even make sense... | 17:47 |
| nuclear_eclipse | how would you diff two patches? | 17:48 |
| paulr | apparently you can | 17:48 |
| paulr | well | 17:49 |
| nuclear_eclipse | the best I can imagine is to apply the two stashed items to different branches and diff the branches... | 17:49 |
| paulr | I think all 3 stashes are the same diff | 17:49 |
| paulr | I think git diff stash@{0} stash@{1} might work | 17:49 |
| nuclear_eclipse | ah, so yes, what you said bascally does what I mentioned: it applies the two patches to separate copies of the current branch, and diffs the result | 17:52 |
| nuclear_eclipse | actually, I'm wrong | 17:53 |
| nuclear_eclipse | apparently git stores the original commit ref context for stashed items and uses that as the base point for the diffs | 17:54 |
| * paulr thinks | 17:59 | |
| paulr | git stash apply aplies from stack? | 17:59 |
| daryn | paulr: but leaves it on the stack...i think git pop applies and then removes it from the stack... check the docs | 18:00 |
| paulr | maybe that's the proper | 18:00 |
| paulr | erm problem | 18:00 |
| paulr | i'm knackered | 18:00 |
| paulr | hmm | 18:10 |
| daryn | heading home...cya | 18:10 |
| *** Quits: daryn (~daryn@h158.249.190.173.static.ip.windstream.net) (Quit: Ex-Chat) | 18:11 | |
| paulr | nuclear_eclipse: still there/ | 18:23 |
| *** Quits: paulr (~IceChat09@2001:470:9310:aaaa:290b:b5bc:41f0:9238) (Quit: Light travels faster then sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak) | 18:56 | |
| *** Quits: giallu (~giallu@fedora/giallu) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) | 19:03 | |
| *** Quits: Ragnor (~Ragnor@dslb-188-100-044-146.pools.arcor-ip.net) (Remote host closed the connection) | 19:39 | |
| *** Joins: Ragnor (~Ragnor@dslb-188-100-044-146.pools.arcor-ip.net) | 19:39 | |
| *** Quits: scribe9343423 (~scribe934@static.96.23.63.178.clients.your-server.de) (Remote host closed the connection) | 20:00 | |
| *** Joins: scribe9343423 (~scribe934@static.96.23.63.178.clients.your-server.de) | 20:00 | |
| *** Quits: micahg (~micah@ubuntu/member/micahg) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | 20:36 | |
| *** Quits: thraxisp (~thraxisp@24.139.16.154) (Quit: thraxisp) | 21:38 | |
| *** Joins: daryn (~daryn@h1.146.16.98.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) | 22:14 | |
| *** Joins: micahg (~micah@ubuntu/member/micahg) | 22:14 | |
| *** Joins: thraxisp (~thraxisp@24.139.16.154) | 22:29 | |
| *** Quits: thraxisp (~thraxisp@24.139.16.154) (Quit: thraxisp) | 22:52 | |
| *** Quits: daryn (~daryn@h1.146.16.98.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) (Quit: Ex-Chat) | 23:32 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.9.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!