[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Debian-sf-devel] some thoughts about name and other

From: Soon-Son Kwon
Subject: Re: [Debian-sf-devel] some thoughts about name and other
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:55:44 +0900
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 02:03:23PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Soon-Son Kwon (2002-03-26 12:21:48 +0900) :
> > Today I could install the newest 2.6.X package via dselect
> > and found that it still contains the following statements in most pages:
> >
> > ---
> [...]
> > ---
> >   
> > As many of us know that former "VA Linux Systems" changed their name
> > to "VA software" officially and they are focusing on sourceforge...
> >
> > I read that they may release sourceforge open edition some day from
> > debian-sf homepage but I don't think anybody know the exact date and
> > not sure if it will actually happen or not.
> Well, judging by the way they answer queries and questions (i.e. not
> at all), I think we can safely assume they won't release it in the
> foreseeable future.  I consider this to be a shame, but that is
> personal judgement.
> > I am not saying that they should open their souce code now or they
> > should change their license back to GPL-like one.  I do respect
> > their big contribution to open source/free software community by
> > running sourceforge so far and wish them prosper much more than now.
>   Of course we cannot ask that they switch back to GPL.  We'd like
> them to, but that's not the point.  I personnally think switching to
> commercial and proprietary was a big mistake, but it's their choice.
> And I also have a huge respect for what they did (although some points
> of "how they did it" are still a bit obscure to me ;-).

Yeah...let's not talk about on this further...whether their license
change is good or not...I think this can be flame and has nothing 
to do with the actual development...

> > But I think at least the debian-sf needs to change something....
> > Current status may conflict the user because it shows the above
> > statement on many pages and even the name & icon at the front page
> > is all the same as the original sourceforge.
>   I understand it might confuse the user.  However, removing their
> copyright info would be bad taste (and it's forbidden by the GPL).
> And we haven't made enough changes to claim a significant part of the
> copyright.  That may change over time, of course, but it's not the
> case yet.

Hmmm...I didn't compare the current code and the latest release from
VA yet. If you think you didn't change much from the original one, 
your comment makes sense. But recollecting my experience on trying to 
install 2.5 using the source code long time ago, it required tricky 
change to existing programs many times and didn't have a automated 
installation procedure at all. I think making a package so that we 
can install it from dselect itself is a big change...though the actual 
user experience is all the same. for changing the name, how about "debian-sf" instead of 

I don't think this is a big change as savannah did and personally I don't
want a brand new one. "debian-sf" will let people think it has some 
relation with sf(sourceforge) as well as debian.

And what if VA ever releases the sourceforge open edition sometimes
in the future? If so, the confusion will be bigger than now.

> > As I mentioned above, I do want VA prosper & keep running current
> > sourceforge... Even if we change the name & statements & icon, we
> > can show some big thank-you by including sourceforge icon/link
> > somewhere on the front page by default or anything other than
> > that...  
>   Hm.  That sounds like a good idea.  I think we could replace the
> current footer with our own.  It could be shorter (one line max, to
> save some screen space), and contain a link to a more complete page.
> That page could contain the relevant copyright info, including VA and
> Debian-SF, a brief history of the project, words of thanks, links to
> the original Sourceforge, etc.

Yes...if you are ok, please do so asap...that will surely clear 
some possible misunderstandings quickly/easily.

> > (In doing so, I want to inform you that the current sourceforge icon
> > in the debian-sf package and the original one differ...  They
> > changed their icon already. :-) )
>   Yes, I know.  However, I wouldn't say that the Debian-SF icon and
> the original one differ.  Rather, the current icon and the
> original one differ :-)  But since we have no idea what the license of
> the new one is (or more precisely there's no license), we cannot use
> that new icon.

Oh! I agree with your point! That's my misunderstanding. :-)

Hope to hear from another peole....

           (o_             **WTFM**
(o_  (o_   //\
(/)_ (/)_  V_/_

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]