Do you contribute?
Posted 14 June 2008 - 11:47 PM
Here's the thread for you to give some notification to the community you work for, and what it's like. Ideally, this is useful for anyone visiting these forums who's ever wanted to contribute, but doesn't know how or what to do.
Personally, I maintain a few packages for the Fedora Project. I got into it for three reasons: (1) I wanted to know how the development of a major Linux distribution works. (2) Fedora makes it easy for people who want to contribute packages to get started. See: http://fedoraproject...kageMaintainers. (3) Although I used to passionately *hate* Fedora and all RPM-based distros (I using Debian, actually, and still believe dpkg+apt is far superior for package management), I eventually grew to like Fedora's philosophy of free, cutting edge, and usability.
For people without a ton of spare time to help out (like me), it's a good project to contribute to. It has a wide audience (meaning what you do gets tested/used, which helps advance Linux in general... since most of it's packages are FOSS projects intended for any distro), and it isn't a place of a lot of elitism and favoritism. Personally, I haven't spent much time on IRC, and I only occasionally read the email lists... but I still find it easy to submit new packages, get them reviewed, and released officially.
What projects do YOU contribute to?
Posted 15 June 2008 - 02:42 AM
Posted 15 June 2008 - 03:08 AM
Posted 15 June 2008 - 02:28 PM
Posted 15 June 2008 - 02:30 PM
Posted 15 June 2008 - 05:28 PM
Posted 15 June 2008 - 05:58 PM
I've never contributed to an open source technology. I don't plan on it. I do, however, write security-related programs of my own that others are free to use.
As you said you've never contributed to open source, I assume your security-related programs are closed-source. Is there a reason why you don't release your source code, while making the program available for free?
Edited by Aghaster, 15 June 2008 - 05:59 PM.
Posted 15 June 2008 - 08:35 PM
Oh wait... I did send one bug fix to the developers of python for psp a little while ago, but I think thats it.
Posted 15 June 2008 - 10:43 PM
Posted 15 June 2008 - 10:47 PM
Nothing really beyond that, though.
Posted 15 June 2008 - 11:14 PM
I try to send in bug reports when I find bugs I can reproduce.
I do this as well, since I run a variety of platforms (SPARC, PPC, & x86) and use the same programs on almost all of them.
Posted 16 June 2008 - 08:28 AM
Posted 16 June 2008 - 02:12 PM
Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:45 PM
Aghaster, I release the source if I release the program publicly. Generally, my projects aren't ever released, just kept in a public SVN repo.
I was confused because you said you never contributed to open source, while you release your sources. I think you can say you do contribute to open source if you make programs and release their source code.
Posted 17 June 2008 - 10:34 AM
But then we decide why should these rippers stop genuine coders who want to learn, from getting the code, so we released the source code for the OS and all programs.
Posted 03 July 2008 - 08:59 PM
Posted 05 July 2008 - 12:33 AM
Edited by kingospam, 05 July 2008 - 12:33 AM.
Posted 05 July 2008 - 03:43 AM
Posted 11 July 2008 - 07:17 PM
along with the GPL users really is just what ticks me off they don't understand what GPL is
Edited by kitche, 11 July 2008 - 07:20 PM.
Posted 14 July 2008 - 11:35 PM
... I just like BSD sicne I can close it at any time and such
As far as I've always known, if you own the *copyright* (say, if you wrote it, basically) to a GPL program, you can change the license to anything at any time. I guess the legality of it is, as copyright holder, one of the rights granted to you by that status is the ability to change licensing. I'm pretty sure you can, at least, apply this to any future revisions.
One of the stickier points of this is patches. If I have a bunch of people who contribute patches to my software as GPL (yes, you can license patches), then I can't change the license of the software with patches, unless I have consent from the copyright holders of said patches.
With past revisions: say you make v1.1 of your software and put a proprietary license on it, but I've previously downloaded v1.0, which was GPL'd. I have ownership of a piece of software that was licensed to me as GPL (the v1.0 of your code). So basically I can do anything to it within terms of the GPL (including redistribute, or fork it to another project). Now, if I somehow happened to get a copy of full source to your v1.1, and it were closed source, I can't do either of those because it's not licensed as such. Also, in the case of v1.0, I can't change the license in any future revisions/forks I make of the software, because the code I "own" wasn't licensed to me with the right to do that - nor am I the copyright holder, obviously.
EDIT: And also note, under this logic... you could replace GPL with BSD in the above paragraph and it's still true. If I download a version of your code that is BSD, I gain ownership of a copy of software under that license, and can do anything with it I see fit - so long as it adheres to the BSD license, of course. My point being, with the code you distribute (whether it be via GPL or BSD license), you can't retroactively "close source" previous versions of your code... at least, not the copies someone else already obtained.
This is where my legalese gets muddy. You *might* be able to change licensing on past versions, though I'm not sure. I am sure, though, of the fact that any copies of said software already obtained were obtained via the original license, and can't have their licensing altered after the fact.
Edited by Dirk Chestnut, 14 July 2008 - 11:42 PM.
BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!