wikiOS

GLneo · Post by **GLneo** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 am

this is just an idea and kinda a request, i was thinking about how hard it is to fix bugs in others OS's( get CVS access, commit, mail patches etc... ), i don't know if this has been done before but what about a media wiki OS where the code can be edited by anyone who knows c and has a web browser, now the changes wouldn't go directly to CVS or anything but be more like suggestions, if someone finds a logic error or something just edit, i will look at history and review changes before final code update, I could host the project myself but i have no experience in Wiki's and mysql, etc... so if anyone would help learn mysql stuff , or host me , or point out any flaws in my idea you are welcome Too!

thx!

maddog39 · Post by **maddog39** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:52 pm

But in that case you would be making your code automatically Public Domain, because now that those people have contributed to the code, they hold the software license too, and basically your screwed. Because now you cant do anything without their concent as well. Although I guess this all depends on your license.

Alboin · Post by **Alboin** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:50 pm

maddog39 wrote:But in that case you would be making your code automatically Public Domain, because now that those people have contributed to the code, they hold the software license too, and basically your screwed. Because now you cant do anything without their concent as well. Although I guess this all depends on your license.

Not necessarily, if you have them put their code under public domain, BSD, GPL, etc. when they contribute it, it is under said license. (This is what Wikipedia does.) Therefore, as long as it's under a truly free license (PD, BSD) you can do whatever you want with it. (Including commercial.)

GLneo · Post by **GLneo** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:13 pm

I'm a little confused as to licenses, but i have heard about people who contributing getting license control or something, but like i said what is changed on the wiki will just be suggestions and I'll actually do the code change but i guess that doesn't change anything... I'm still a little confused on what the different licenses do...

Alboin · Post by **Alboin** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:09 pm

GLneo wrote:... I'm still a little confused on what the different licenses do...

I'm no lawyer, but from what I have come to see:

PD = Use for whatever you want; Author couldn't care less.
BSD = PD+Author wants acknowledgment for his work.
MIT = BSD - 3; (Basically the same.....)
GPL = BSD+(MS EULA\2); Any code derived from licensed code is under GPL; Otherwise free. (Generally.)

My personal favorite: The Beerware License

This is just a run down of a few FOSS licenses. Read the actual documents to find more. (And take my licensing summaries with a grain of salt

)

GLneo · Post by **GLneo** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:42 am

hmmm... you seem to know your licenses... with BSD any code derived from licensed code is under what? can they just do anything with your code? i need a license that prevents forks ( i hate forks it seem they just divide your user - developer base

) i would like it to be open source but have all control over the project and it's derived works... or would this discourage developers from helping???

i like that beerware license , except I'm only 17...

catware is good: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/19 ... 01921.html

urxae · Post by **urxae** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:11 am

GLneo wrote:hmmm... you seem to know your licenses... with BSD any code derived from licensed code is under what? can they just do anything with your code? i need a license that prevents forks ( i hate forks it seem they just divide your user - developer base ) i would like it to be open source but have all control over the project and it's derived works... or would this discourage developers from helping???

You can't be both open source and prevent forks. "Open source" and "all control over the project and it's derived works" are pretty much mutually-exclusive. This is because open source actively permits anyone to fork, by design.

You can, of course, still distribute source without allowing forks - but it won't be open source, at least not in the accepted meaning of the term.

See here, specifically:

OSI wrote:3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

i like that beerware license , except I'm only 17...

Move to the Netherlands

(or anywhere else in the world with a legal drinking age <= 17)

catware is good: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/19 ... 01921.html

As mentioned in replies to that mailing list post, it discriminates to people who are allergic to cats

.

GLneo · Post by **GLneo** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:35 am

I'm allergic to cats but i still like petting them, as long as I'm in a well ventilated place

, why does open source have to allow forks, if the source is available to the public and they can modify it, why not?

urxae · Post by **urxae** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:29 am

GLneo wrote:why does open source have to allow forks, if the source is available to the public and they can modify it, why not?

Because it also needs to allow distribution of modified versions to anyone (not just the original author(s)), which are basically forks (no matter how small). (Did you read my quote from the open source definition on the OSI site?)

Note that many in the open source community consider forks to be a good thing, allowing people to take a project in a different direction or experiment with new features or internal structure. If that leads to a superior product, the fork may be incorporated back into the original project. (see for instance the EGCS/GCC split and merge for an example of this)
This works best with copyleft licenses like the GPL since they guarantee license-compatibility between the original project and the fork, so a merge is (at least legally) possible.

It also allows people to start their own project if they disagree with "management decisions" of the original project, without having to rewrite all of the code. (see the X.org split from XFree86 for an example of this case, though this seems to also have been a contributing factor in the EGCS/GCC split)
This is presumably the case you disagree with most?

Combuster · Post by **Combuster** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:16 pm

maybe some practical points of interest:

everybody is allowed to edit the wiki, and as such, is able to make, and more probably, break code. You should be aware that one edit can ruin your project. So, you should be aware of the fact that one person who is testing something can break other people's code because it isnt being kept separate...

Also, how do you intend to compile from wiki without having everybody having to crawl all over the place to gather the sources, or blowing the server out for building over and over again

GLneo · Post by **GLneo** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:48 pm

well as i said earlier the wiki edits will just be suggestions, and i'll edit the main code myself

if x.org never split we would probably have everyone working on the one and it would be a lot further than the two are now!

urxae · Post by **urxae** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:34 pm

GLneo wrote:if x.org never split we would probably have everyone working on the one and it would be a lot further than the two are now!

AFAIK pretty much everyone is working on the one (i.e. X.org), and has been since rather shortly after the split. (IIRC XFree86 had a massive exodus when it happened)

GLneo · Post by **GLneo** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:37 pm

but must suck to be the guy who founded xfree86, all his developers start following someone else and take the code with them!

Alboin · Post by **Alboin** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:48 pm

If you don't want forks, then why not just modify an existing license, such as the BSD to allow patches, small modifications, but not any complete splits?

Brynet-Inc · Post by **Brynet-Inc** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:53 pm

GLneo wrote:but must suck to be the guy who founded xfree86, all his developers start following someone else and take the code with them!

I myself use a modified BSD licence, You ARE allowed to add your own clauses to the licence or remove one you don't like..

Alboin wrote:If you don't want forks, then why not just modify an existing license, such as the BSD to allow patches, small modifications, but not any complete splits?

Absolutely!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licence#Terms wrote:The text of the license is considered to be in the public domain and thus may be modified without restriction.

Heck even the following would be fine:

Code: Select all

4. Any products derived from this software may not be distributed without
   first submitting the project name/description and/or any associated 
   Internet address to the author for internal purposes.
5. Anyone planning to use this software for any commercial and/or proprietary 
   products must first contact the author to arrange paying a monthly
   royalty fee.

You're also free to just write your own licence..