[copyleft-next] [MERGE REQUEST] HBR should require the project stands up for software freedom of those who contribute to it

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Sat Feb 9 15:42:29 UTC 2013


On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 08:36:42AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Meanwhile, my understanding of the identi.ca conversation is this:
> 
>  * Pam Chestek got copyleft-next off GitHub, and nothing there told her
>    GitHub wasn't the canonical location for participation (this should
>    be fixed immediately, IMO.  I realize the README says it, but there
>    should be something in big bold letters on GitHub: THIS IS A MIRROR
>    ONLY.  DO NOT SUBMIT PULL REQUESTS AND ISSUES HERE.  USE MAILING LIST
>    AND GITORIOUS [or whatever solution Fontana decides].
>    Ideally, the pull request/issue tracker should be turned off.
> 
>  * Pam realized, probably after getting the checkout and seeing the
>    readme, that Gitorious was preferred.
> 
>  * Pam couldn't submit changes via Gitorious (at that point, presumably
>    her tracking branches were all pointed at GitHub, which was probably
>    part of the problem).
> 
>  * Fontana opened an issue on GitHub to collaborate with Pam on the
>    issue she raised.
> 
>  * I theorized that this marked a distributing occurrence, since GitHub
>    instance of copyleft-next seemed to be active again instead of just being a
>    mirror.  I complained heavily to Fontana about it, and Fontana
>    countered with what I believed were incorrect analogies to GPLv3
>    drafting process (i.e.,  I thought copyleft-next was trying to avoid
>    those, anyway!)
> 
> 
> Pam and Fontana, is that summary accurate from your point of view?

Except for the very last part, it's completely inaccurate, but Pam has
corrected the error.

> I do agree that having to follow GitHub, identi.ca, Gitorious, and this
> mailing list is annoying.  

I agree with that too. For a long time it wasn't a practical problem.

 - RF



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list