XSF Discussion - 2013-02-22

  1. Lance

    bear: don't forget bosh updates. I'm catching up on mine

  2. Lance


  3. bear

    I haven't (completely) - working on some last night and will again later

  4. bear

    drive by comment: (heading out for a walk) -- I started the whole github thread knowing that I would be asking kev and peter for access to start working on its infrastructure

  5. Kev

    I don't understand what the underlying aim with GitHub is.

  6. bear

    my goal is to document github, web page and wiki config and setup so that 1) we have docs and 2) it's easier for a small infra team to manage

  7. Kev

    I'd be much happier with us doing anything about it if I knew what the perceived benefit was.

  8. bear

    the conversation quickly expanded beyond what I was asking

  9. bear

    I just thought about having it as a read-only mirror

  10. Kev

    We already have that on gitorious.

  11. bear

    but then I got to thinking about making it bi-directional when kurt brought up TOS

  12. Kev

    So I'm not sure what going to github buys is there.

  13. bear

    yea, but github has a much nicer interface and (this is my personal thought) I'm already using it every single day so why not enable it also

  14. Kev

    I'm not strictly opposed to mirroring to github.

  15. Kev

    The reward doesn't seem significant to me, but neither does the cost.

  16. bear

    so I figured small steps

  17. Kev

    Although the moment people start trying to send in pull requests via github things suddenly become much more 'interesting'.

  18. bear

    the core part of this is, basically: if it's a low cost item to add another way of viewing XFS data then why not

  19. Lance

    Kev and that's Kurt's point about terms of service, IPR considerations, etc

  20. Lance

    but +1 on basic mirroring

  21. Kev

    I'm not sure what that's Kurt's point, when I raised it first, but oh well!

  22. bear

    right, and it is that interesting part that has me thinking of how to solve it - but that is a future change

  23. bear


  24. Kev

    I don't see why that would add value to us, and it seems like lots of pain.

  25. Kev

    I'm happy to delay having that argument until we want to do it, but there will be an argument.

  26. Kev

    By which I obviously mean a healthy debate between great minds.

  27. bear

    lets get the mirroring up and then read the TOS and see how scary it is

  28. bear


  29. Kev

    Well, the ToS hit us the moment we mirror.

  30. bear

    is it that onerous?

  31. Kev

    At the time, they were onerous enough that we weren't willing to host Swift there, IIRC.

  32. Kev

    How they've changed in the interim who knows...

  33. bear

    hmm, I will have to read it - and then go check on my own repos

  34. bear

    ok, that will be homework for next board meeting - right now i need to run and then later finish my bosh patches

  35. Kev


  36. bear waves

  37. Kev

    And thanks for trying to Do Stuff.

  38. Ashley

    i don't really see how the github ToS is very controversial

  39. Ashley

    as i read it, it seems to be quite explicit about github *not* owning any copyright or IP

  40. ralphm

    Yeah, I'd be interested in that too

  41. ralphm

    On github vs. gitorious, besides legal issues, I think people are just more familiar with github. The only reason I have a gitorious account is because I wanted to see how cloning the xmpp repo would work. I find their way horrible.

  42. Kev

    ISTR the problem I had with it long ago (for Swift) wasn't assigning copyright, but granting a license, including granting a license to code I don't own, and therefore can't grant them a license.

  43. Kev

    e.g. BSD code in Swiften.

  44. Kev

    This would likely not apply to the XSF.

  45. ralphm

    granting a license to github, so that they publish and copy repos?

  46. Kev


  47. Ashley

    ok, let me look at that language, if i can find it

  48. Kev

    This was years ago, and it may not exist anymore, and isn't pertinent to the XSF anyway.

  49. ralphm

    I agree that'd be kind of useful for the thing to work

  50. Kev

    Or probably wouldn't. IANAL to judge.

  51. ralphm

    Kev: but for you BSD example, how would that be a problem? Did they require *you* granting that license, or that they effectively have such license?

  52. Kev

    That I grant the license.

  53. Kev


  54. ralphm

    that'd be weird

  55. Kev

    But this was a number of years ago, and I don't remember what I did this afternoon, let alone back then.

  56. Ashley

    i don't see anything like that in the github tos

  57. Ashley

    seems like they try to indemnify themselves to the hilt. I would think that a requirement to grant them license might even be contradictory to indemnification.

  58. Kev

    No idea. I admit that the XSF's IPR policy in general scares me, in my ignorant non-lawyerish state.

  59. Ashley


  60. Kev

    Not sure it's funny!

  61. ralphm


  62. Neustradamus

    waqas reminder: http://tracker.xmpp.org/ is always down :/

  63. ralphm

    and also:

  64. ralphm


  65. Neustradamus

    in the same time, a good news Debian 7 RC1 is out ;)

  66. ralphm

    And there was much rejoicing. ⚐