Re: majordomo/majorcool development

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, David Lee wrote:

> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:27:38 +0000 (GMT)
> From: David Lee <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: majordomo/majorcool development
>
>
> What is the future of majordomo and majorcool?
>
>
> We've used majordomo (now 1.94.5) and majorcool (now 1.3.2) for ten years, and
> they have served us reasonably well.  Recently I needed to do a little
> tinkering, and came across some issues which, if addressed properly, could be
> useful to other sites.

We've used them since 1997.

> But both majordomo and majorcool seem stuck.  (There was once a plan to do a
> big "Majordomo 2", but that seemed to get stuck around the year 2000.)
>
> Both have much to offer, especially in combination.  But both are hampered by
> (seeming) complete lack of active development.
>
>
>
> How realistic would it be for us (the keen readers here) to begin to do a
> little, small-scale, development work on good old Majordomo-1 and Majorcool?
> (BTW, if approved, I would volunteer to do what I could.)
>
> The things I would particularly like to address are:
>  1. Packaging/installation
>  2. Configuration file (single site, multiple domain)
>  3. Rationalisation of some poor Majordomo/Majorcool interfaces
>  4. Perhaps combine (to emphasise that this is a single application
>     with two interfaces)
>
> Perhaps others, too, have a wish-list.
>
> My particular emphasis would be on small-scale things that we could get
> quickly coded and released. And then to continue, small-scale, with a "release
> early, release often" practice.  (Mj2 seemed to get bogged down because it was
> too hugely different from Mj1.  And I notice that Mailman development seems to
> be similarly sluggish.)

Great idea David!  Have a look at the current patches and contribs:

 ftp://ftp.ccsf.org/majordomo-patches/1.94.5/
 ftp://ftp.ccsf.org/majordomo-contrib/

> Would the licensing allow others (such as us) to adopt the code, adjust it,
> and then re-release it?

The way it is now, the licensing does not allow it; have a look at the
LICENSE file in Mj1 distribution.  MC licensing is "NO-FRILLS":)

---8<---
Since MajorCool is closely tied to Majordomo, it's licensing
policies are very similar to that distribution. If in doubt,
please refer to the Majordomo License Agreement (substituting
"MajorCool" for "Majordomo" and "NCR" for Brent Chapman's
"Great Circle Associates").

--
Bill Houle
NCR Corporation
[email protected]
---8<---

There was a one-week attempt in March 2005 to release the next Mj1 under
the current license.  The last message about it in Majordomo Workers list,
[email protected], was dated March 15, 2005.

> If not, could the current licence holders make it so?  Perhaps they could
> release it a known open-source licence, such as GPL, or Perl-Artistic, Apache,
> etc.

I'd contact Brent Chapman and Bill Houle directly, or use the address in
MJ1 LICENSE file:

---8<---
     7.    GENERAL.

           a.    This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
                 the State of California.

           b.    Address all correspondence regarding this license
                 to GCA's electronic mail address
                 <[email protected]>, or to

                      Great Circle Associates
                      1057 West Dana Street
                      Mountain View, CA  94041
                      USA
---8<---

> Would we be OK to move development to (say) Sourceforge or similar?

Sounds logical.

> Etc.
>
> (Just some thoughts for the holiday season...)


Regards,

Joe
-- 
     _/   _/_/_/       _/              ____________    __o
     _/   _/   _/      _/         ______________     _-\<,_
 _/  _/   _/_/_/   _/  _/                     ......(_)/ (_)
  _/_/ oe _/   _/.  _/_/ ah        [email protected]