Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: Vanilla 0.6.3

From: sabufrancis::rediffmail::com at: 29-Sep-2008 20:28

Hi I took a good look at the Academic Free License ver 2.0 under which the original Vanilla 0.6.2 was distributed. Clause 6 specifies the Attribution rights in case of derived works. I think I have catered to the points mentioned in the clause (e.g. I have retained the original copyright notice, made it it clear that this is a derived work, etc. both in the source code as well as on my site.) If the attributions are still not meeting the requirements of the original authors I will change them suitably. Unfortunately the clause does not specify anything on how to name a derived version. Ideally, I would not want to fork this modification into a different branch and if there is some way by which the changes made can be patched back into its development it would be nice. I am happy that this notice has made the original developers bring back discussions on Vanilla. It is a well thought out software and I believe its development should be continued. If the code contributed by me is not to be patched into the main development, then I would request the original authors to suitably modify their documentation/web-site on how they plan to accept future modifications; and maybe modify the license they are giving with the product to reflect that. I will then consider forking my modifications into another project if there is sufficient interest in my "fork" Clarifying the current 0.6.2 documentation on this matter will save future contributors from facing this issue. IMHO, to expect future modifications to be kept private to the modifier is unrealistic, especially when a project has not seen any public releases for the last few years. My reading on the open source movement is that in any open source development the main trunk of development will see additions of authors and there should not be any control of that process. If control is to be exercised, then I think the software should be developed under a non-open source license. You can correct me on this. Now if someone can point out how I should name this derived version, this issue of naming should be settled. If indeed the version number is not to be indicated, just calling it "Vanilla" may not be right in such circumstances because someone may mistake it as version 1.0 of Vanilla, which will be even more deceptive. So it is all very confusing to me. In the meantime, let this point of naming take its natural course. I would truly appreciate feedback on the working of the modified version of Vanilla. Regards Sabu Francis