Quantcast

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
Hi, Winston,

You wrote to me if I would make you a co-owner of the Hudson project. I
feel that this should be discussed in public, so I'm copying this e-mail
to the dev list.


The project ownership role in the Hudson project is more of a honorary
role than a practical one.

You cited the Subversion administration as to why you'd like the role,
but the only additional privilege available to project owners is the
ability to make others a committer, and in the Hudson project, any
committer can make others committers by simply using the IRC bot. Just
join the #hudson channel and we can set you up for that.

Does that address your needs, or do you still feel that you need the
role? If so, why?

I ask, because an open-source project like Hudson is meritocracy, and
there are many folks with a proven long-term history of contributions.
So while I know you are very capable engineer, I thought it'd be bit
unusual to give you the role that no one else has.

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Winston Prakash
Why I want be the co-owner of the Hudson Project? Hmm.. let me see .. so that I boast to my friends that I co-own Hudson project? :-)

On the serious side .. I've been asked by my management at Oracle to co-own the project, since I'm filling the void left by you at Oracle. I know this is becoming political, but I'd rather discuss technical issues (my forte) than legal issues (INAL).

- Winston  

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, Winston,

You wrote to me if I would make you a co-owner of the Hudson project. I feel that this should be discussed in public, so I'm copying this e-mail to the dev list.


The project ownership role in the Hudson project is more of a honorary role than a practical one.

You cited the Subversion administration as to why you'd like the role, but the only additional privilege available to project owners is the ability to make others a committer, and in the Hudson project, any committer can make others committers by simply using the IRC bot. Just join the #hudson channel and we can set you up for that.

Does that address your needs, or do you still feel that you need the role? If so, why?

I ask, because an open-source project like Hudson is meritocracy, and there are many folks with a proven long-term history of contributions. So while I know you are very capable engineer, I thought it'd be bit unusual to give you the role that no one else has.

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]




--
- Winston
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Nigel Magnay
Oracle *really* don't understand 'community', do they?


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Winston Prakash <[hidden email]> wrote:
Why I want be the co-owner of the Hudson Project? Hmm.. let me see .. so that I boast to my friends that I co-own Hudson project? :-)

On the serious side .. I've been asked by my management at Oracle to co-own the project, since I'm filling the void left by you at Oracle. I know this is becoming political, but I'd rather discuss technical issues (my forte) than legal issues (INAL).

- Winston  

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, Winston,

You wrote to me if I would make you a co-owner of the Hudson project. I feel that this should be discussed in public, so I'm copying this e-mail to the dev list.


The project ownership role in the Hudson project is more of a honorary role than a practical one.

You cited the Subversion administration as to why you'd like the role, but the only additional privilege available to project owners is the ability to make others a committer, and in the Hudson project, any committer can make others committers by simply using the IRC bot. Just join the #hudson channel and we can set you up for that.

Does that address your needs, or do you still feel that you need the role? If so, why?

I ask, because an open-source project like Hudson is meritocracy, and there are many folks with a proven long-term history of contributions. So while I know you are very capable engineer, I thought it'd be bit unusual to give you the role that no one else has.

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]




--
- Winston

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Jason van Zyl
On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:

Oracle *really* don't understand 'community', do they?


Given the fact that Winston answered completely honestly, and that Oracle didn't try to shape the answer is evidence otherwise. Oracle has some interest in the project for its internal use and part of a tooling stack for it's customers but CI is not a big money maker for Oracle compared to its primary business. Putting someone here to actively maintain the project is a community gesture in my opinion. The project is, in fact, technically all Oracle's. The IP, the Hudson name, and the vast majority of the core code is Oracle's. To be perfectly honest I think it's been hard for Kohsuke to give the project the attention he did when when he was working for Oracle. Oracle is trying to put someone in the project who's full-time job it is to help manage the concerns of the community.

Ask yourself what the community cares about? The answers I typically see are:

Q1  Does it have licensing that is acceptable for me in a business environment?
Q2  Is the project being actively maintained?
Q3  Is the project getting better?

A1 Yes. I had a long discussion with folks at Oracle because I was going to fork the project because the IP was completely unclear to me. They explained the situation and they are working on cleaning up to the satisfaction of the IP team at Eclipse and Sonatype's lawyers. So that's a good thing. The license is not going to change to something business unfriendly.

A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and have had to work around those issues. I have heard this from other folks as well. I think it's a good thing having full-time people around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one the project. But Winston asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand. Could this community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to be improved. 

A3 It's only going to get better with dedicated folks working on it. If Kohsuke is working full-time on it, that's great. But I think the more the merrier.

Hudson, for better or worse, is not a project at Apache or Eclipse. It is the clear and outright property of Sun, now Oracle. Maybe this was all perfectly clear as people were adopting the project but that is indeed the case.

In all frankness, Sonatype has a commercial interest in Hudson and I think having full-time people is great. So I support Winston being a co-owner. I don't think there's really any downside. I've talked to Winston and he's in no way malicious. He just wants to do good work and I hope people don't conflate that with what they may think about Oracle. The situation is what it is.


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Winston Prakash <[hidden email]> wrote:
Why I want be the co-owner of the Hudson Project? Hmm.. let me see .. so that I boast to my friends that I co-own Hudson project? :-)

On the serious side .. I've been asked by my management at Oracle to co-own the project, since I'm filling the void left by you at Oracle. I know this is becoming political, but I'd rather discuss technical issues (my forte) than legal issues (INAL).

- Winston  

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, Winston,

You wrote to me if I would make you a co-owner of the Hudson project. I feel that this should be discussed in public, so I'm copying this e-mail to the dev list.


The project ownership role in the Hudson project is more of a honorary role than a practical one.

You cited the Subversion administration as to why you'd like the role, but the only additional privilege available to project owners is the ability to make others a committer, and in the Hudson project, any committer can make others committers by simply using the IRC bot. Just join the #hudson channel and we can set you up for that.

Does that address your needs, or do you still feel that you need the role? If so, why?

I ask, because an open-source project like Hudson is meritocracy, and there are many folks with a proven long-term history of contributions. So while I know you are very capable engineer, I thought it'd be bit unusual to give you the role that no one else has.

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]




--
- Winston


Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.

 -- Unknown



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

R. Tyler Croy

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:
>
> > Oracle *really* don't understand 'community', do they?
> >
>
> Given the fact that Winston answered completely honestly, and that Oracle didn't try to shape the answer is evidence otherwise. Oracle has some interest in the project for its internal use and part of a tooling stack for it's customers but CI is not a big money maker for Oracle compared to its primary business. Putting someone here to actively maintain the project is a community gesture in my opinion. The project is, in fact, technically all Oracle's. The IP, the Hudson name, and the vast majority of the core code is Oracle's. To be perfectly honest I think it's been hard for Kohsuke to give the project the attention he did when when he was working for Oracle. Oracle is trying to put someone in the project who's full-time job it is to help manage the concerns of the community.


I think you're putting words in Oracle's mouth here, in my discussions with
Winston and other Oracle employees I've never gotten the impression that
Winston's position has been to work with the Hudson community **at all**.
That's not to say he is and won't continue to be a delightful member of the
community, but as far as I've observed Oracle's involvement in Hudson has been
much more driven by the need to support Hudson as part of Oracle's Java-based
development stack both internally and externally.

I also think you're severely discounting the amount of work that Kohsuke and
the community put into Hudson. Kohsuke remains by far the biggest contributor
to Hudson, Oracle can own the Hudson name all it wants, if Kohsuke jumps over
to Belvedere (a pretend fork I just made up) then I would suspect that a large
number of the community would follow since that's where the latest development
would be happening.

> In all frankness, Sonatype has a commercial interest in Hudson and I think having full-time people is great. So I support Winston being a co-owner. I don't think there's really any downside. I've talked to Winston and he's in no way malicious. He just wants to do good work and I hope people don't conflate that with what they may think about Oracle. The situation is what it is.


Ignoring Oracle, InfraDNA and Sonatype for a minute and looking at this like a
pure open source meritocracy, I think this request makes little sense. I agree
that Winston is a super-groovy dude but his community contributions to core
have been few and recent, compared to some other core developers (abayer@ comes
to mind). I simply don't think he's earned the status to boast
about co-ownership (Winston, I realize that was tongue-in-cheek).


Code is just one part of the Hudson project right now, administrator privileges
on the Java.net project really only affect Subversion, so I'm not sure what
practical benefit there is to adding multiple admins. We have many other
community resources, some Oracle-owned, some community-owned, what of those?



If this is the route that "we" as a community want to venture down, I would
suggest a model similar to that of the FreeBSD core team which is elected by
contributors to guide the project instead of arbitrarily promoting
corporate-backed contributors.



Note: this is nothing personal against Winston, I distrust his corporate
overlords thought :)


- R. Tyler Croy
--------------------------------------
  GitHub: http://github.com/rtyler
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/agentdero


attachment0 (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Nigel Magnay
In reply to this post by Jason van Zyl

Given the fact that Winston answered completely honestly, and that Oracle didn't try to shape the answer is evidence otherwise. Oracle has some interest in the project for its internal use and part of a tooling stack for it's customers but CI is not a big money maker for Oracle compared to its primary business.

Well, actually, honest or not, he didn't really answer Kohsuke's question, just that he'd been asked to by his manager. That's not a particularly compelling reason in my book. Where's the benefit ? You get that requests like this from Oracle these days arouse suspicion?

 
Putting someone here to actively maintain the project is a community gesture in my opinion. The project is, in fact, technically all Oracle's. The IP, the Hudson name, and the vast majority of the core code is Oracle's.

No, the sourcecode IP *ownership* is

Copyright (c) 2004-, Kohsuke Kawaguchi, Sun Microsystems, Inc., and a number of other of contributers

(which is basically Kohsuke's commits prior to leaving Oracle). And licensed thereof under a liberal MIT license. As Oracle seem to be failing to learn quite often these days (OpenOffice -> LibreOffice, OpenSolaris -> OpenIndiana), you can't just assert control of these projects because it's a management whim. 


To be perfectly honest I think it's been hard for Kohsuke to give the project the attention he did when when he was working for Oracle. Oracle is trying to put someone in the project who's full-time job it is to help manage the concerns of the community.


You think that since starting a company to concentrate on Hudson, he hasn't been able to devote enough time to Hudson? When I first read that, I thought you must be joking! Let's see; some ballpark stats:

[magnayn@Prozac ~/dev/github/hudson]
 (master) $ git shortlog -nse --since="2010-04-05" --until="2010-10-05" |grep koh
   412 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

[magnayn@Prozac ~/dev/github/hudson]
 (master) $ git shortlog -nse --since="2009-10-05" --until="2010-04-05" |grep koh
   574 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

[magnayn@Prozac ~/dev/github/hudson-plugins]
 (master) $ git shortlog -nse --since="2010-04-05" --until="2010-10-05" |grep koh
   275 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

[magnayn@Prozac ~/dev/github/hudson-plugins]
 (master) $ git shortlog -nse --since="2009-10-05" --until="2010-04-05" |grep koh
   176 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

So sure. He's slowed down. 
6 months before leaving Oracle = 750 commits. IP that Oracle owns.
6 months after leaving Oracle = 687 commits. IP that Oracle does not own.

That's ~3.8 commits *a day* down from ~4.1. But I don't think that amounts to finding it "hard to give the project attention". And a simple gmail search in the -user and -dev forums shows a pretty similar pattern.

To understand why it's a surprising request to those of us that think you lead communities from the front :-

(master) $ git shortlog -nse | grep koh
  7119 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>
(master) $ git shortlog -nse | grep prak
     4 wjprakash <wjprakash@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

Plugins

(master) $ git shortlog -nse | grep koh
  2445 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>
(master) $ git shortlog -nse | grep prak
    10 wjprakash <wjprakash@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

And I can't help but think that the loss of Oracle would be no big deal, and it's certainly a level of input that seems wholly inadequate for a 'co-owner' to hold.

 
Ask yourself what the community cares about? The answers I typically see are:

Q1  Does it have licensing that is acceptable for me in a business environment?
Q2  Is the project being actively maintained?
Q3  Is the project getting better?

A1 Yes. I had a long discussion with folks at Oracle because I was going to fork the project because the IP was completely unclear to me. They explained the situation and they are working on cleaning up to the satisfaction of the IP team at Eclipse and Sonatype's lawyers. So that's a good thing. The license is not going to change to something business unfriendly.

The IP is pretty clear to me, but perhaps you have paranoid and/or stupid lawyers. But for all I know Eclipse and Sonatype's lawyers want to cook up some ghastly CLA agreement to get all the contributors to sign just to make it 'safe'. The direct license can't change anyway (well, without the agreement of all the contributors) - you could bundle the whole thing inside something closed source of course. 

I also think Q1 is only applicable to you. I don't think may users give a fig over and above 'is it free to use'. And I don't see how the proposition on the table helps this issue.

 

A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and have had to work around those issues. I have heard this from other folks as well. I think it's a good thing having full-time people around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one the project. But Winston asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand. Could this community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to be improved. 


Then they've been stunningly silent on the -dev list. Or maybe noone else cares about your issues. How hard is it to clone the code in github and do what you want? Do the work, contribute it back. If the maintainer doesn't like it, you fork. This is how OSS is *supposed* to work!

Or are you saying it would be desirable for Oracle to be able to allocate committers at their own whim (which is the only additional practical gain to be had with this proposal) and effectively short-circuit the whole process if they like?

Frankly, Hudson succeeds *because* of Kohsuke. The code stats speak for themselves - go check. If on leaving Oracle he'd decided to fork the code to avoid trademark issues not covered by the main license, I'd bet the majority of other contributors would have followed.

And I don't understand how the proposition on the table helps with this issue.

 
A3 It's only going to get better with dedicated folks working on it. If Kohsuke is working full-time on it, that's great. But I think the more the merrier.


I don't understand how the proposition on the table helps with this issue.
 
Hudson, for better or worse, is not a project at Apache or Eclipse. It is the clear and outright property of Sun, now Oracle. Maybe this was all perfectly clear as people were adopting the project but that is indeed the case.


Nonsense; they own a proportion of the core, and a much lesser proportion of the plugins. And it's all MIT licensed anyway, which is wholly liberal and avoids boring GPL license incompatibility arguments, and means that pretty much anyone can do what they like. The *ownership* of the source that they do, in that sense, isn't actually terribly useful as there's very little they can actually do with it that isn't an option to everyone else.
 
In all frankness, Sonatype has a commercial interest in Hudson and I think having full-time people is great. So I support Winston being a co-owner. I don't think there's really any downside. I've talked to Winston and he's in no way malicious. He just wants to do good work and I hope people don't conflate that with what they may think about Oracle. The situation is what it is.


I'm sure Winston is a lovely chap and wholly embarrassed at being co-opted by his manager into asking for something that doesn't really stack up any more than if *I'd* asked to be made co-owner. But Oracle... no, I don't trust Oracle at all. -1 from me.

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
In reply to this post by Jason van Zyl

Hmm, the way I see it is that Winston is showing his honesty in the face
of what feels to me like an odd request from his management, so I'm not
sure if I see it as the "evidence otherwise."

In any case, no one is questioning whether it is a good idea for him (or
anyone) to work on Hudson full time or not. In fact his technical
contributions thus far have been all integrated and I have no doubt many
users found them useful. But what's being asked is bit more than that.

I'm also surprised about your comment about having a hard time getting
some changes in to the core. Until this e-mail, my understanding was
that Sonatype had a concern about the IP situation and chose not to
participate in the development (although it sounds like that's no longer
the case.)

(Or for that matter, I can't help but notice the difference in your tone
from your previous e-mail [1]. Not that there's anything wrong with it,
but I'm just surprised. Looks like the situation has changed. Oh well.)


Winston, I think I'm still willing to be convinced --- I guess I just
need something that pushes me over my little emotional problem with
this. Are there really no reasons?

Or put another way, I value Oracle's involvement in and good
relationship with the Hudson project, and I'd like to keep that going.
So if this matters to Oracle a lot and this is what it takes to keep
that going, I'm happy to give it to you as a sign of our good intention.
This is too small a thing to hurt the relationship over. But I also hope
your management understands that this is an unusual way of doing it.

(And I'm very sorry that I'm putting you in a spotlight, Winston.)


[1]
http://hudson.361315.n4.nabble.com/Concerned-about-the-future-of-the-Hudson-project-tp2294929p2297765.html

On 11/02/2010 10:14 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:
>
>>  Oracle *really* don't understand 'community', do they?
>>
>
> Given the fact that Winston answered completely honestly, and that Oracle didn't
> try to shape the answer is evidence otherwise. Oracle has some interest in the
> project for its internal use and part of a tooling stack for it's customers but
> CI is not a big money maker for Oracle compared to its primary business. Putting
> someone here to actively maintain the project is a community gesture in my
> opinion. The project is, in fact, technically all Oracle's. The IP, the Hudson
> name, and the vast majority of the core code is Oracle's. To be perfectly honest
> I think it's been hard for Kohsuke to give the project the attention he did when
> when he was working for Oracle. Oracle is trying to put someone in the project
> who's full-time job it is to help manage the concerns of the community.
>
> Ask yourself what the community cares about? The answers I typically see are:
>
> Q1 Does it have licensing that is acceptable for me in a business environment?
> Q2 Is the project being actively maintained?
> Q3 Is the project getting better?
>
> A1 Yes. I had a long discussion with folks at Oracle because I was going to fork
> the project because the IP was completely unclear to me. They explained the
> situation and they are working on cleaning up to the satisfaction of the IP team
> at Eclipse and Sonatype's lawyers. So that's a good thing. The license is not
> going to change to something business unfriendly.
>
> A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and have had to
> work around those issues. I have heard this from other folks as well. I think
> it's a good thing having full-time people around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one
> the project. But Winston asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand.
> Could this community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be
> that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to be improved.
>
> A3 It's only going to get better with dedicated folks working on it. If Kohsuke
> is working full-time on it, that's great. But I think the more the merrier.
>
> Hudson, for better or worse, is not a project at Apache or Eclipse. It is the
> clear and outright property of Sun, now Oracle. Maybe this was all perfectly
> clear as people were adopting the project but that is indeed the case.
>
> In all frankness, Sonatype has a commercial interest in Hudson and I think
> having full-time people is great. So I support Winston being a co-owner. I don't
> think there's really any downside. I've talked to Winston and he's in no way
> malicious. He just wants to do good work and I hope people don't conflate that
> with what they may think about Oracle. The situation is what it is.
>
>>
>>  On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Winston Prakash<[hidden email]
>>  <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>>
>>      Why I want be the co-owner of the Hudson Project? Hmm.. let me see .. so
>>      that I boast to my friends that I co-own Hudson project? :-)
>>
>>      On the serious side .. I've been asked by my management at Oracle to
>>      co-own the project, since I'm filling the void left by you at Oracle. I
>>      know this is becoming political, but I'd rather discuss technical issues
>>      (my forte) than legal issues (INAL).
>>
>>      - Winston
>>
>>      On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi<[hidden email]
>>      <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>>
>>          Hi, Winston,
>>
>>          You wrote to me if I would make you a co-owner of the Hudson project.
>>          I feel that this should be discussed in public, so I'm copying this
>>          e-mail to the dev list.
>>
>>
>>          The project ownership role in the Hudson project is more of a honorary
>>          role than a practical one.
>>
>>          You cited the Subversion administration as to why you'd like the role,
>>          but the only additional privilege available to project owners is the
>>          ability to make others a committer, and in the Hudson project, any
>>          committer can make others committers by simply using the IRC bot. Just
>>          join the #hudson channel and we can set you up for that.
>>
>>          Does that address your needs, or do you still feel that you need the
>>          role? If so, why?
>>
>>          I ask, because an open-source project like Hudson is meritocracy, and
>>          there are many folks with a proven long-term history of contributions.
>>          So while I know you are very capable engineer, I thought it'd be bit
>>          unusual to give you the role that no one else has.
>>
>>          --
>>          Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/
>>
>>          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>          To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>          <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>          For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>          <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      --
>>      - Winston
>>
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.
>
> -- Unknown
>
>
>


--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Christoph Kutzinski
In reply to this post by Nigel Magnay
Am 02.11.2010 21:20, schrieb Nigel Magnay:

>
>
>     A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and
>     have had to work around those issues. I have heard this from other
>     folks as well. I think it's a good thing having full-time people
>     around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one the project. But Winston
>     asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand. Could this
>     community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be
>     that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to
>     be improved.
>
>
> Then they've been stunningly silent on the -dev list. Or maybe noone
> else cares about your issues. How hard is it to clone the code in github
> and do what you want? Do the work, contribute it back. If the maintainer
> doesn't like it, you fork. This is how OSS is *supposed* to work!


Well actually I had complained once about this on the IRC channel that
it's very hard to get *any* response on the dev list about review
requests for patches I provided.
I guess that's because Kosuhke (or abayer when it comes to the Maven 2
plugin) are short on time. Having more core committers (so not
necessarily project owner) might certainly be helpful.
Cloning the repo is not an option for me BTW.


Just my 2 cents on this specific subtopic. I'll remain silent on the
general question of this thread as I have no clear opinion on it ;-)


Christoph

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Henrik Lynggaard Hansen
In reply to this post by Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
2010/11/2 Kohsuke Kawaguchi <[hidden email]>:

> Or put another way, I value Oracle's involvement in and good relationship
> with the Hudson project, and I'd like to keep that going. So if this matters
> to Oracle a lot and this is what it takes to keep that going, I'm happy to
> give it to you as a sign of our good intention. This is too small a thing to
> hurt the relationship over. But I also hope your management understands that
> this is an unusual way of doing it.

In my opinion, +1 on giving co-owner as a sign of good faith and
working relations with Oracle. I would hate any kind of forking
whether it be by Oracle or Sonatype, and I would also hate another
Solaris/OpenOffice situation.

On the other hand I am new here, so I will let the more experienced
people decide.

Best regards
Henrik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
In reply to this post by Christoph Kutzinski

OK. My bad. Let me attend to your review requests now...

On 11/02/2010 01:41 PM, Christoph Kutzinski wrote:

> Am 02.11.2010 21:20, schrieb Nigel Magnay:
>>
>>
>>      A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and
>>      have had to work around those issues. I have heard this from other
>>      folks as well. I think it's a good thing having full-time people
>>      around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one the project. But Winston
>>      asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand. Could this
>>      community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be
>>      that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to
>>      be improved.
>>
>>
>>  Then they've been stunningly silent on the -dev list. Or maybe noone
>>  else cares about your issues. How hard is it to clone the code in github
>>  and do what you want? Do the work, contribute it back. If the maintainer
>>  doesn't like it, you fork. This is how OSS is *supposed* to work!
>
>
> Well actually I had complained once about this on the IRC channel that
> it's very hard to get *any* response on the dev list about review
> requests for patches I provided.
> I guess that's because Kosuhke (or abayer when it comes to the Maven 2
> plugin) are short on time. Having more core committers (so not
> necessarily project owner) might certainly be helpful.
> Cloning the repo is not an option for me BTW.
>
>
> Just my 2 cents on this specific subtopic. I'll remain silent on the
> general question of this thread as I have no clear opinion on it ;-)
>
>
> Christoph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Jason van Zyl
In reply to this post by R. Tyler Croy

On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:01 PM, R. Tyler Croy wrote:


On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Jason van Zyl wrote:

On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:

Oracle *really* don't understand 'community', do they?


Given the fact that Winston answered completely honestly, and that Oracle didn't try to shape the answer is evidence otherwise. Oracle has some interest in the project for its internal use and part of a tooling stack for it's customers but CI is not a big money maker for Oracle compared to its primary business. Putting someone here to actively maintain the project is a community gesture in my opinion. The project is, in fact, technically all Oracle's. The IP, the Hudson name, and the vast majority of the core code is Oracle's. To be perfectly honest I think it's been hard for Kohsuke to give the project the attention he did when when he was working for Oracle. Oracle is trying to put someone in the project who's full-time job it is to help manage the concerns of the community.


I think you're putting words in Oracle's mouth here, in my discussions with
Winston and other Oracle employees I've never gotten the impression that
Winston's position has been to work with the Hudson community **at all**.

I had a conversation with people at Oracle so I don't think I'm putting words in their mouth so much as relaying their explanations to me. I didn't pull the sentiment out of the air.

That's not to say he is and won't continue to be a delightful member of the
community, but as far as I've observed Oracle's involvement in Hudson has been
much more driven by the need to support Hudson as part of Oracle's Java-based
development stack both internally and externally.

Sure, that's part of it which I expressed.


I also think you're severely discounting the amount of work that Kohsuke and
the community put into Hudson.

I don't think I did that. The crux of my argument is that more full-time people on Hudson is a good thing.

Kohsuke remains by far the biggest contributor
to Hudson, Oracle can own the Hudson name all it wants, if Kohsuke jumps over
to Belvedere (a pretend fork I just made up) then I would suspect that a large
number of the community would follow since that's where the latest development
would be happening.

I honestly don't think a lot of corporate users would do that.


In all frankness, Sonatype has a commercial interest in Hudson and I think having full-time people is great. So I support Winston being a co-owner. I don't think there's really any downside. I've talked to Winston and he's in no way malicious. He just wants to do good work and I hope people don't conflate that with what they may think about Oracle. The situation is what it is.


Ignoring Oracle, InfraDNA and Sonatype for a minute and looking at this like a
pure open source meritocracy, I think this request makes little sense.

As much as you may not like it Oracle owns the project. I don't think this has been made overly clear so there is no policy like there is at Eclipse or Apache. In my conversations with Kohsuke he's not the least bit interested in forking the code. Kohsuke is free to correct me. 

If this project were at Apache then you would be right. If this project were at Eclipse again probably mostly right. But here a project that has been a work for hire essentially for the last two years does not have that complete freedom.

I agree
that Winston is a super-groovy dude but his community contributions to core
have been few and recent, compared to some other core developers (abayer@ comes
to mind). I simply don't think he's earned the status to boast
about co-ownership (Winston, I realize that was tongue-in-cheek).


Code is just one part of the Hudson project right now, administrator privileges
on the Java.net project really only affect Subversion, so I'm not sure what
practical benefit there is to adding multiple admins. We have many other
community resources, some Oracle-owned, some community-owned, what of those?



If this is the route that "we" as a community want to venture down, I would
suggest a model similar to that of the FreeBSD core team which is elected by
contributors to guide the project instead of arbitrarily promoting
corporate-backed contributors.


The code is ostensibly MIT licensed so once all the CLAs are collected, which Oracle is working on, then you can honestly do what you feel is right. But that doesn't change the fact that the it's not a corporate-backed contributor as in an employee that is paid to contribute code to Apache. You have code that was written for a corporation for their project which they have a legal claim over.

Listen, I've been at Apache and Eclipse a long time and at those places it's far more clear. But here I think working with Oracle, and the request they made would be better then forking the code and trying to do anything over. I'm a pragmatist. The request was obviously not made in the vein of what one might think is normal at Apache, but more of a commitment to work on the project and show of support by the corporation that effectively owns the project.



Note: this is nothing personal against Winston, I distrust his corporate
overlords thought :)


- R. Tyler Croy
--------------------------------------
 GitHub: http://github.com/rtyler
Twitter: http://twitter.com/agentdero


Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.

  -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Jason van Zyl
In reply to this post by Nigel Magnay

On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:


Given the fact that Winston answered completely honestly, and that Oracle didn't try to shape the answer is evidence otherwise. Oracle has some interest in the project for its internal use and part of a tooling stack for it's customers but CI is not a big money maker for Oracle compared to its primary business.

Well, actually, honest or not, he didn't really answer Kohsuke's question, just that he'd been asked to by his manager. That's not a particularly compelling reason in my book. Where's the benefit ? You get that requests like this from Oracle these days arouse suspicion?


I don't really think it's suspicious. I think it's pretty clear that they are saying it's an Oracle project and they'd like someone around to help as the co-lead. I don't think there's anything veiled there. Winston hasn't tried to hide the fact he works for Oracle.

 
Putting someone here to actively maintain the project is a community gesture in my opinion. The project is, in fact, technically all Oracle's. The IP, the Hudson name, and the vast majority of the core code is Oracle's.

No, the sourcecode IP *ownership* is


That's copyright not IP. All contributors according to the SCA share copyright. The IP of a work for hire is generally that of the employer. Employee contracts sometimes have specific clauses but it's generally a contractual issue. The copyright allows relicensing.

Copyright (c) 2004-, Kohsuke Kawaguchi, Sun Microsystems, Inc., and a number of other of contributers

(which is basically Kohsuke's commits prior to leaving Oracle). And licensed thereof under a liberal MIT license. As Oracle seem to be failing to learn quite often these days (OpenOffice -> LibreOffice, OpenSolaris -> OpenIndiana), you can't just assert control of these projects because it's a management whim. 


To be perfectly honest I think it's been hard for Kohsuke to give the project the attention he did when when he was working for Oracle. Oracle is trying to put someone in the project who's full-time job it is to help manage the concerns of the community.


You think that since starting a company to concentrate on Hudson, he hasn't been able to devote enough time to Hudson? When I first read that, I thought you must be joking! Let's see; some ballpark stats:

[magnayn@Prozac ~/dev/github/hudson]
 (master) $ git shortlog -nse --since="2010-04-05" --until="2010-10-05" |grep koh
   412 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

[magnayn@Prozac ~/dev/github/hudson]
 (master) $ git shortlog -nse --since="2009-10-05" --until="2010-04-05" |grep koh
   574 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

[magnayn@Prozac ~/dev/github/hudson-plugins]
 (master) $ git shortlog -nse --since="2010-04-05" --until="2010-10-05" |grep koh
   275 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

[magnayn@Prozac ~/dev/github/hudson-plugins]
 (master) $ git shortlog -nse --since="2009-10-05" --until="2010-04-05" |grep koh
   176 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

So sure. He's slowed down. 
6 months before leaving Oracle = 750 commits. IP that Oracle owns.
6 months after leaving Oracle = 687 commits. IP that Oracle does not own.

That's ~3.8 commits *a day* down from ~4.1. But I don't think that amounts to finding it "hard to give the project attention". And a simple gmail search in the -user and -dev forums shows a pretty similar pattern.


I can only relay our experiences, and the handful of folks I talked to at JavaOne.

To understand why it's a surprising request to those of us that think you lead communities from the front :-

(master) $ git shortlog -nse | grep koh
  7119 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>
(master) $ git shortlog -nse | grep prak
     4 wjprakash <wjprakash@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

Plugins

(master) $ git shortlog -nse | grep koh
  2445 kohsuke <kohsuke@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>
(master) $ git shortlog -nse | grep prak
    10 wjprakash <wjprakash@71c3de6d-444a-0410-be80-ed276b4c234a>

And I can't help but think that the loss of Oracle would be no big deal, 


I can't tell you what to think, but I think that's rather naive.

and it's certainly a level of input that seems wholly inadequate for a 'co-owner' to hold.

Again, I don't think what Oracle is asking for is a mysterious.

 
Ask yourself what the community cares about? The answers I typically see are:

Q1  Does it have licensing that is acceptable for me in a business environment?
Q2  Is the project being actively maintained?
Q3  Is the project getting better?

A1 Yes. I had a long discussion with folks at Oracle because I was going to fork the project because the IP was completely unclear to me. They explained the situation and they are working on cleaning up to the satisfaction of the IP team at Eclipse and Sonatype's lawyers. So that's a good thing. The license is not going to change to something business unfriendly.

The IP is pretty clear to me, but perhaps you have paranoid and/or stupid lawyers. But for all I know Eclipse and Sonatype's lawyers want to cook up some ghastly CLA agreement to get all the contributors to sign just to make it 'safe'.

Eclipse has some of the best IP process and lawyers and their purpose is to make completely safe the consumables of their users. That's how I consulted them on the state of the IP. It's not clear right now but should be soon. Make light of IP issues as you like, but doesn't help here. Sonatype and Eclipse have no say in a CLA that gets drafted for Hudson. Oracle wouldn't accept one written by us so I'm not sure how that comment meshes in with this conversation. Those lawyers were only consulted to do some analysis of the codebase.

The direct license can't change anyway (well, without the agreement of all the contributors) - you could bundle the whole thing inside something closed source of course. 

The SCA is shared copyright, Oracle could change the license to whatever they want. But again the license doesn't have anything to do with the IP. Who the code is licensed to and how doesn't change the ownership of the IP.

All right, I'll just stop the discussion here. Happy to have a rational conversation but I'm not interested in conjecture and you just generally being inflammatory.


I also think Q1 is only applicable to you. I don't think may users give a fig over and above 'is it free to use'. And I don't see how the proposition on the table helps this issue.

 

A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and have had to work around those issues. I have heard this from other folks as well. I think it's a good thing having full-time people around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one the project. But Winston asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand. Could this community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to be improved. 


Then they've been stunningly silent on the -dev list. Or maybe noone else cares about your issues. How hard is it to clone the code in github and do what you want? Do the work, contribute it back. If the maintainer doesn't like it, you fork. This is how OSS is *supposed* to work!

Or are you saying it would be desirable for Oracle to be able to allocate committers at their own whim (which is the only additional practical gain to be had with this proposal) and effectively short-circuit the whole process if they like?

Frankly, Hudson succeeds *because* of Kohsuke. The code stats speak for themselves - go check. If on leaving Oracle he'd decided to fork the code to avoid trademark issues not covered by the main license, I'd bet the majority of other contributors would have followed.

And I don't understand how the proposition on the table helps with this issue.

 
A3 It's only going to get better with dedicated folks working on it. If Kohsuke is working full-time on it, that's great. But I think the more the merrier.


I don't understand how the proposition on the table helps with this issue.
 
Hudson, for better or worse, is not a project at Apache or Eclipse. It is the clear and outright property of Sun, now Oracle. Maybe this was all perfectly clear as people were adopting the project but that is indeed the case.


Nonsense; they own a proportion of the core, and a much lesser proportion of the plugins. And it's all MIT licensed anyway, which is wholly liberal and avoids boring GPL license incompatibility arguments, and means that pretty much anyone can do what they like. The *ownership* of the source that they do, in that sense, isn't actually terribly useful as there's very little they can actually do with it that isn't an option to everyone else.
 
In all frankness, Sonatype has a commercial interest in Hudson and I think having full-time people is great. So I support Winston being a co-owner. I don't think there's really any downside. I've talked to Winston and he's in no way malicious. He just wants to do good work and I hope people don't conflate that with what they may think about Oracle. The situation is what it is.


I'm sure Winston is a lovely chap and wholly embarrassed at being co-opted by his manager into asking for something that doesn't really stack up any more than if *I'd* asked to be made co-owner. But Oracle... no, I don't trust Oracle at all. -1 from me.

 

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Jason van Zyl
In reply to this post by Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3

On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:


Hmm, the way I see it is that Winston is showing his honesty in the face of what feels to me like an odd request from his management, so I'm not sure if I see it as the "evidence otherwise."

In any case, no one is questioning whether it is a good idea for him (or anyone) to work on Hudson full time or not. In fact his technical contributions thus far have been all integrated and I have no doubt many users found them useful. But what's being asked is bit more than that.

I'm also surprised about your comment about having a hard time getting some changes in to the core. Until this e-mail, my understanding was that Sonatype had a concern about the IP situation and chose not to participate in the development (although it sounds like that's no longer the case.)

(Or for that matter, I can't help but notice the difference in your tone from your previous e-mail [1]. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I'm just surprised. Looks like the situation has changed. Oh well.)



I had not until that point been able to talk to anyone at Oracle. Dennis Leung who is also a board member at Eclipse facilitated a discussion with several people at Oracle so I got several perspectives and and outline of the plan for the legal aspects of the project . There is still a lot of work which needs to be done. There are lots of things I didn't know before the final discussion I had with Oracle. Nothing was clear to me before those discussions.

I don't think I've ever tried to hide the fact I'm interested in building a Maven-focused product around Hudson. The IP was the blocking  issue and that's being dealt with. Once that is resolved we do have several things we'd like to submit for perusal.

Winston, I think I'm still willing to be convinced --- I guess I just need something that pushes me over my little emotional problem with this. Are there really no reasons?

Or put another way, I value Oracle's involvement in and good relationship with the Hudson project, and I'd like to keep that going. So if this matters to Oracle a lot and this is what it takes to keep that going, I'm happy to give it to you as a sign of our good intention. This is too small a thing to hurt the relationship over. But I also hope your management understands that this is an unusual way of doing it.

(And I'm very sorry that I'm putting you in a spotlight, Winston.)


[1] http://hudson.361315.n4.nabble.com/Concerned-about-the-future-of-the-Hudson-project-tp2294929p2297765.html

On 11/02/2010 10:14 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:

Oracle *really* don't understand 'community', do they?


Given the fact that Winston answered completely honestly, and that Oracle didn't
try to shape the answer is evidence otherwise. Oracle has some interest in the
project for its internal use and part of a tooling stack for it's customers but
CI is not a big money maker for Oracle compared to its primary business. Putting
someone here to actively maintain the project is a community gesture in my
opinion. The project is, in fact, technically all Oracle's. The IP, the Hudson
name, and the vast majority of the core code is Oracle's. To be perfectly honest
I think it's been hard for Kohsuke to give the project the attention he did when
when he was working for Oracle. Oracle is trying to put someone in the project
who's full-time job it is to help manage the concerns of the community.

Ask yourself what the community cares about? The answers I typically see are:

Q1 Does it have licensing that is acceptable for me in a business environment?
Q2 Is the project being actively maintained?
Q3 Is the project getting better?

A1 Yes. I had a long discussion with folks at Oracle because I was going to fork
the project because the IP was completely unclear to me. They explained the
situation and they are working on cleaning up to the satisfaction of the IP team
at Eclipse and Sonatype's lawyers. So that's a good thing. The license is not
going to change to something business unfriendly.

A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and have had to
work around those issues. I have heard this from other folks as well. I think
it's a good thing having full-time people around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one
the project. But Winston asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand.
Could this community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be
that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to be improved.

A3 It's only going to get better with dedicated folks working on it. If Kohsuke
is working full-time on it, that's great. But I think the more the merrier.

Hudson, for better or worse, is not a project at Apache or Eclipse. It is the
clear and outright property of Sun, now Oracle. Maybe this was all perfectly
clear as people were adopting the project but that is indeed the case.

In all frankness, Sonatype has a commercial interest in Hudson and I think
having full-time people is great. So I support Winston being a co-owner. I don't
think there's really any downside. I've talked to Winston and he's in no way
malicious. He just wants to do good work and I hope people don't conflate that
with what they may think about Oracle. The situation is what it is.


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Winston Prakash<[hidden email]
<[hidden email]>>  wrote:

    Why I want be the co-owner of the Hudson Project? Hmm.. let me see .. so
    that I boast to my friends that I co-own Hudson project? :-)

    On the serious side .. I've been asked by my management at Oracle to
    co-own the project, since I'm filling the void left by you at Oracle. I
    know this is becoming political, but I'd rather discuss technical issues
    (my forte) than legal issues (INAL).

    - Winston

    On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi<[hidden email]
    <[hidden email]>>  wrote:

        Hi, Winston,

        You wrote to me if I would make you a co-owner of the Hudson project.
        I feel that this should be discussed in public, so I'm copying this
        e-mail to the dev list.


        The project ownership role in the Hudson project is more of a honorary
        role than a practical one.

        You cited the Subversion administration as to why you'd like the role,
        but the only additional privilege available to project owners is the
        ability to make others a committer, and in the Hudson project, any
        committer can make others committers by simply using the IRC bot. Just
        join the #hudson channel and we can set you up for that.

        Does that address your needs, or do you still feel that you need the
        role? If so, why?

        I ask, because an open-source project like Hudson is meritocracy, and
        there are many folks with a proven long-term history of contributions.
        So while I know you are very capable engineer, I thought it'd be bit
        unusual to give you the role that no one else has.

        --
        Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
        <[hidden email]>
        For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
        <[hidden email]>




    --
    - Winston



Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.

-- Unknown





--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...

 -- Thoreau 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Jason van Zyl
In reply to this post by Henrik Lynggaard Hansen

On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Henrik Lynggaard wrote:

2010/11/2 Kohsuke Kawaguchi <[hidden email]>:

Or put another way, I value Oracle's involvement in and good relationship
with the Hudson project, and I'd like to keep that going. So if this matters
to Oracle a lot and this is what it takes to keep that going, I'm happy to
give it to you as a sign of our good intention. This is too small a thing to
hurt the relationship over. But I also hope your management understands that
this is an unusual way of doing it.

In my opinion, +1 on giving co-owner as a sign of good faith and
working relations with Oracle. I would hate any kind of forking
whether it be by Oracle or Sonatype, and I would also hate another
Solaris/OpenOffice situation.


This is why we've just kept our work pretty quiet as that's what we would prefer as well. We were blocked for legal reasons, and unfortunately anyone who makes software who doesn't little to legal advice is taking unnecessary risk. And when you have a board, as is the case with Sonatype, sometimes you don't have a choice. We want to submit our work back and Oracle is going to do the work which is not insignificant and it's protection for downstream consumers as well as themselves. Being legally intact is good for everyone.

On the other hand I am new here, so I will let the more experienced
people decide.

Best regards
Henrik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...

 -- Thoreau 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Christoph Kutzinski
In reply to this post by Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
Thanks Kohsuke.

Actually, I think there's currently no review request (for core) from me
still open. abayer took over the last one.

I've been just commenting on the general situation and the frustration
I've sometimes felt about it.


Christoph

Am 02.11.2010 22:31, schrieb Kohsuke Kawaguchi:

>
> OK. My bad. Let me attend to your review requests now...
>
> On 11/02/2010 01:41 PM, Christoph Kutzinski wrote:
>> Am 02.11.2010 21:20, schrieb Nigel Magnay:
>>>
>>>
>>> A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and
>>> have had to work around those issues. I have heard this from other
>>> folks as well. I think it's a good thing having full-time people
>>> around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one the project. But Winston
>>> asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand. Could this
>>> community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be
>>> that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to
>>> be improved.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then they've been stunningly silent on the -dev list. Or maybe noone
>>> else cares about your issues. How hard is it to clone the code in github
>>> and do what you want? Do the work, contribute it back. If the maintainer
>>> doesn't like it, you fork. This is how OSS is *supposed* to work!
>>
>>
>> Well actually I had complained once about this on the IRC channel that
>> it's very hard to get *any* response on the dev list about review
>> requests for patches I provided.
>> I guess that's because Kosuhke (or abayer when it comes to the Maven 2
>> plugin) are short on time. Having more core committers (so not
>> necessarily project owner) might certainly be helpful.
>> Cloning the repo is not an option for me BTW.
>>
>>
>> Just my 2 cents on this specific subtopic. I'll remain silent on the
>> general question of this thread as I have no clear opinion on it ;-)
>>
>>
>> Christoph
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Nigel Magnay
In reply to this post by Jason van Zyl

That's copyright not IP. All contributors according to the SCA share copyright. The IP of a work for hire is generally that of the employer. Employee contracts sometimes have specific clauses but it's generally a contractual issue. The copyright allows relicensing.


The contributors that signed an SCA. I never did (though I only worked on plugins). And I thought that the provenance of the core was decidedly shady, given that a) there was nowhere near full coverage of contributors [1], and b) it wasn't required to sign an SCA to contribute patches - merely to *commit* them into the repository [2]. Thus such copyright transferral will not have happened (indeed, this is why linux distinguishes between author and committer - he who commits does not necessarily own the code). That'll scare the lawyers.


In any case, this seems to have veered into the territory that has nothing to do with "co-ownership" by Oracle and any inferred costs and benefits to be had, only your desire to see some kind of neatly IP safe bundle that keeps Eclipse lawyers happy, that you feel you need before you can go and use it commercially which isn't really of any interest to me.
 

[2] http://hudson.361315.n4.nabble.com/HUDSON-5695-commit-access-td1569343.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
In reply to this post by Christoph Kutzinski
On 11/02/2010 03:12 PM, Christoph Kutzinski wrote:
> Thanks Kohsuke.
>
> Actually, I think there's currently no review request (for core) from me
> still open. abayer took over the last one.

Looks that way. Good, and sorry about that.

I'll try to put more emphasis on reviewing instead of coding myself. It
seems like a shift that should be in order.

> I've been just commenting on the general situation and the frustration
> I've sometimes felt about it.
>
>
> Christoph
>
> Am 02.11.2010 22:31, schrieb Kohsuke Kawaguchi:
>>
>>  OK. My bad. Let me attend to your review requests now...
>>
>>  On 11/02/2010 01:41 PM, Christoph Kutzinski wrote:
>>>  Am 02.11.2010 21:20, schrieb Nigel Magnay:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  A2 We've honestly had a hard time getting some core changes in and
>>>>  have had to work around those issues. I have heard this from other
>>>>  folks as well. I think it's a good thing having full-time people
>>>>  around. Yes, Oracle wants someone one the project. But Winston
>>>>  asked. Oracle could just tell us all to go pound sand. Could this
>>>>  community fork Hudson and succeed. I doubt that many people would be
>>>>  that interested in doing all that work if the project continued to
>>>>  be improved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Then they've been stunningly silent on the -dev list. Or maybe noone
>>>>  else cares about your issues. How hard is it to clone the code in github
>>>>  and do what you want? Do the work, contribute it back. If the maintainer
>>>>  doesn't like it, you fork. This is how OSS is *supposed* to work!
>>>
>>>
>>>  Well actually I had complained once about this on the IRC channel that
>>>  it's very hard to get *any* response on the dev list about review
>>>  requests for patches I provided.
>>>  I guess that's because Kosuhke (or abayer when it comes to the Maven 2
>>>  plugin) are short on time. Having more core committers (so not
>>>  necessarily project owner) might certainly be helpful.
>>>  Cloning the repo is not an option for me BTW.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Just my 2 cents on this specific subtopic. I'll remain silent on the
>>>  general question of this thread as I have no clear opinion on it ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>  Christoph
>>>
>>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>  For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Jason van Zyl
In reply to this post by Nigel Magnay

On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:


That's copyright not IP. All contributors according to the SCA share copyright. The IP of a work for hire is generally that of the employer. Employee contracts sometimes have specific clauses but it's generally a contractual issue. The copyright allows relicensing.


The contributors that signed an SCA. I never did (though I only worked on plugins). And I thought that the provenance of the core was decidedly shady, given that a) there was nowhere near full coverage of contributors [1], and b) it wasn't required to sign an SCA to contribute patches - merely to *commit* them into the repository [2]. Thus such copyright transferral will not have happened (indeed, this is why linux distinguishes between author and committer - he who commits does not necessarily own the code). That'll scare the lawyers.

It will all get tracked down. People who don't want to sign CLAs will likely have their code removed. There have been cases where IBM has called contributors at Apache when contributions were not clear. If not clear either it was scrapped or re-implemented. I don't believe Oracle will be any less stringent. Usually anything up to 200 lines can be injected without a CLA but we've even tried to cut down on those practices at Apache by putting a notice in the issue tracking system where patches are submitted. Yes, it's all potential risk but it's when you don't watch these things you just open yourself up to real problems. If lawyers perceive you have a problem, you have a problem. I'm not exactly overly fond of the IP trade and the lawyers that deal with IP but such is life with software. Ignoring that gets you hosed really fast.



In any case, this seems to have veered into the territory that has nothing to do with "co-ownership" by Oracle and any inferred costs and benefits to be had, only your desire to see some kind of neatly IP safe bundle that keeps Eclipse lawyers happy, that you feel you need before you can go and use it commercially which isn't really of any interest to me.

That may be the case, but I'm actually interested in making sure open source ecosystem remains viable. Which means helping do things like I do at Apache and Eclipse to make sure consumers don't get screwed. Which in turn causes problems in adoption which just makes earning a living working in oss hard. So even from a purely self-interested reason I think the request for co-ownership should be granted to show good faith (as someone else suggested) because it's probably the practical thing to keep Oracle interested in the project. To think they are not important to the survival of the project would be dead wrong. I want the project to thrive.

Why? Do you think any large company using Hudson would venture to use it if they thought there was a potential legal problem with Hudson, code related to Hudson and employees that might have contributed to it in relation to Oracle? There's no way. Who else is going to spend the money to do the necessary cleanup of the IP and put real governance in place? It's vital, you simply can't ignore this stuff. We've had cases at Eclipse where IP reviews have triggered the reimplementation of algorithms that had patents that weren't usable at Eclipse. If you don't protect downstream consumers you can potentially completely screw lots of them. It's the kind of people you loathe that would attempt to take advantage of something like this but that's who you have to protect users against. And without the necessary resources you simply can't provide this protection. That would be the downfall of the project if Oracle decided to back away from Hudson.

I've never seen very many questions about project structure, IP review or general legal oversight, or who actually runs and owns the projects. I started asking but very late in the game. And for those who don't like it blame yourselves for making assumptions about how the project worked and was run.

[2] http://hudson.361315.n4.nabble.com/HUDSON-5695-commit-access-td1569343.html

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in.
No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically
dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of 
dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or
goals are in doubt.

  -- Robert Pirzig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

Andrew Bayer
In reply to this post by Christoph Kutzinski
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Christoph Kutzinski <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well actually I had complained once about this on the IRC channel that it's very hard to get *any* response on the dev list about review requests for patches I provided.
I guess that's because Kosuhke (or abayer when it comes to the Maven 2 plugin) are short on time. Having more core committers (so not necessarily project owner) might certainly be helpful.
Cloning the repo is not an option for me BTW.


Yeah, all other stuff aside, we *really* need some sort of formalized system for submitting to core - I know I'm crap at noticing every email/remembering to respond/etc. Any suggestions on that front would be appreciated.

A.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

GLundh

One word (ok, actually 26 words including this sentence):

 

Gerrit.

 

(But I guess migrating from SVN to GIT/Gerrit is a bit unlikely).

 

Best regards

Gustaf

 

From: Andrew Bayer [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: den 3 november 2010 01:43
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Adding me as co-owner of Hudson java.net project

 

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Christoph Kutzinski <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Well actually I had complained once about this on the IRC channel that it's very hard to get *any* response on the dev list about review requests for patches I provided.
I guess that's because Kosuhke (or abayer when it comes to the Maven 2 plugin) are short on time. Having more core committers (so not necessarily project owner) might certainly be helpful.
Cloning the repo is not an option for me BTW.

 

Yeah, all other stuff aside, we *really* need some sort of formalized system for submitting to core - I know I'm crap at noticing every email/remembering to respond/etc. Any suggestions on that front would be appreciated.

 

A.

12
Loading...