Re: Re: OpenSS7 GPL'd LiS.

Dan,

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Dan Gora wrote:

> 
> --- "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I released LiS-2.16.16-1 under GPL January 2004.  I have been doing
> > this
> > for over a year now, so I don't know why your so upset now. 
> > Perhaps
> > its because, while before there was GCOM's release, now there is
> > none:
> > while before OpenSS7 project releases were just an alternative, now
> > they
> > are the only alternative.
> 
> I am getting upset about it now because I had no idea that your LiS
> was released under GPL until right now.  If I had known about it
> before I probably would have gotten upset about then....
> 
> > Why are you so up in arms about a competing release that is now the
> > only
> > release?
> 
> Because you are creating confusion by making no distnction between
> your GPL version and the "main" LiS LGPL source.  If you keep it on
> openss7.org and clearly mark it so that people know that they are not
> getting the GCOM LGPL version, then there is no problem...

Dave said GCOM will not release LiS after 2.18.0.  Nevertheles,
it is kept on openss7.org and all the documentation is marked as
an OpenSS7 LiS release.  The release does not claim to be a GCOM
release, as a matter of fact notice is given to the fact that it
is an OpenSS7 release and that it is released under GPL.  When
loaded, it will, however, replace an LiS-2.18.0 release that
that is why the numbering is LiS-2.18.1.  Previously I
numberered such as LiS-2.16.18-19, however, when I added Debian
.deb packaging, the version number must be 0 or 1 for upstream
released debs, and to include the source in the upload, so now
rpms are LiS-2.18.1-1 and debs are lis_2.18.1_0.

As there are over 100,000 changes, none of these releases were
workable as a patch.  As there is no upstream release and no
upstream maintainer and since we are willing to make both
upstream and downstream changes, I don't see how there can be
any problem or confusion.

If Dave (or somebody else for goodness sake) were still willing
to maintain the upstream package, I would have released 2.18.0-1
and then 2.18.1-1, etc.  However, as no 2.18.1 is fortcoming, it
is not workable to release 2.18.0-104, patcularly because of the
Debian reinterpretation of source code inclusion in the build at
_2.  It is better for autoconf too, which I had to really fake
out to get it to generate a LiS-2.16.18-19.tar.gz tarball in the
first place.  Upstream numbering is far more natural for
autoconf.

So, I suppose you have no problem now?

--brian

> 
> 
> dan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-streams mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email protected]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦