[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