Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kry]

Un-Thesis wanted to talk to a 'new' amule dev that had nothing against him, not like me or Creteil (his own words) So I sent Citroklar.

Here's the deal he proposes. Please vote.


it's simple really
really fucking simple
you put me in charge of the protocol library and you guys can do what you want w/ the gui
xmule and amule guis will still exist only on a shared library
the library specs would use an opensource corss-platform socket+thread library other than wx but would not be an exe but a library
the library would be lgpl'd
of course this won't happen
you'll find the amule devs quite unresponsive
at least the leaders


EDIT: Please post the reason for your vote. Thanks!

[Hetfield]

a) i agree him to join us.
this means he will be like us.
first time he will says: "fuck you you don't understand nothing" he goes out.
b) fully gpl
c) we continue like now, without one who say what to do and how.


if it accept all this...ok i agree.
he's a good dev, no doubt about it, and we need devs

[Kry]

I voted ignore, for obvious reasons. Un-Thesis has done nothing to network code for months other than ripping aMule stuff or applying users's patches.

About we coding the GUI... I think no comments needed.

I see that as just disrespect and ignorance.

And about the LGPL library... same answer. aMule is, and will be, GPL. Period.

I don't know if I'm a leader, but starting insults to development team 'leaders' (we don't have such shit, we vote on stuff) is not a good start.


I say Ignore.

[pil0t]

but the idea about the library (add: not LGPL) is good. an amule w/o GUI but the current stability
and some valgrind'ing will be perfect (for me).

[Kry]

sure is good, pilot? LGPL'd library?

GUI/core separation would be very hard... I would like it too, and we can work on it... sometime, but he talks about creating a full new project. I love my mule

[deltaHF]

i say ignore too, and why?

un-thesis lie a lot ..

taked stuff from our code and said: Jan 29 03:19:33 i personally don't look at amule code .. X(

called ppl using amule and talking about amule Assholes and Stupidasscunts..  8o

user who said something about amule on his forum should show more respect, cos it's not amule forum there .. and xmule has a lot of our code .. :rolleyes:

at least.. telling such stuff like "i created the community that made amule possible" & "there would be no amule w/o me" is a PURE nonsense !

filtering the word amule to \-- another program --/ on his xmule forum  ..  :]

lies, lies, lies .. no way to trust someone like he..

we want aMule GPL, and not shareware  ..

my 5 cents ..

[superstoned]

I say discuss.

I guess he wants the library to be L(esser) GPL cuz he still wants to make a (commercial) gui.

Well, I think thats oke, as long as you guys develop a free gui - one has choice. I dont care wheter there IS a commercial gui, as long as there is a free alternative.

If he earns some money with his commercial gui, he can use that (at least partially) to enhance the core (library). so that'd be good for everyone (esp the ones using the free gui, cuz there is money being trown at the core they use ;-) without them paying it)

personally, he can talk alot shit (I agree with Kry) but he, can code. why not let him do that...

Its useless to do the same things twice.

BUT discuss it:
- ask him WHY *L*GPL (if he wants a gui which is paid for, its oke, but he must agree that he will invest lets say 50% of the money/time he earns from this, into the core!)
- Ask him to (try to) be more polite... ;-)
- Tell him he must let you guys help him on the core - for example, dont let him be IN CHARGE, but just being a dev - with 1 vote, just like the others. that'd be better, I think. of course, you can tell him he'd be 'in charge' (if that is good for his ego) but he wont have more than one vote...  
>so he must accept patches (if they are good, of course)
>stop insulting other ppl  :baby:
>and start coding  

Now everyone can be happy:
someone is putting lots of time & energy in seperate core/gui (an aditional dev never hurts)
there is a commercial gui for a/xmule being developed, and 50% of the earnings are going to be invested in the core (money never hurts)
and you guys just continue your job (working on core & gui)

possible disadvantage:
fightings... yep, I know, Un can cause alot trouble. but hey, aren't you guys grown up, and able to ignore him, if proper, and listen, if he says good things??? you know him...

I can understand if you guys think the disadvantage is too much, and you dont trust him on working on the core, but - then you can make a deal: the core will be Lgpl, as long as everyone does what he said he'd do - if not, it'd be GPL again (so: if Un doesnt invest 50% time& money in the lib's, they will be GPL again, and of course he can't fork it "just 5 min's before". you can put that in an agreement... I think making a good agreement, putting it on paper etc is essential... I think he'll understand, there has been "some trouble in the past" )

[Kry]

Well, superstoned, my point is Un-Thesis is not even good at coding. I'd like Madcat to post on the subject, as me and him worked together with Un on xMule.

[thepolish]

Hello,

I vote ignore. I dont know unthesis neither amule devs, and never mind. I m neutral in this "war"

Simply, this proposition doesnt fit the (my ?) Linux phylosophy.

aMule is under GPL, so if he wants develop over it, he take it, put credits on dev, and start as many new branches what he wants on it.

If aMule devs like the patches he will make, they take them with credits. If he like aMule devs work, he takes it with credits.

Master words in linux developpment must be coordination and cooperation, not master and servants: 1 person, 1 vote.

GPL is the king way because it protects the community against selfish devs

Something i dont understand: why does he need aMule devs for his project as he can do his library with starting with xmule as the main dev ?

And money will be a problem with a commercial GUI:

- 1st, it is always a cause of war between devs
- 2nd: why people would pay for a commercial GUI when an excelent free GUI exist ?? Look at the story of netscape and explorer, or realplayer and wmplayer !
- 3rd: it would be stange to see pleople paying for a GUI and often download freely copyrigthed stuff because they dont want to pay for it... The commercial viability of this kind of project is very obscur ...

the polish

[Citroklar]

I voted ignore. I had a long conversation with him, where he made this proposal to me.

Let me explain: He has that funny idea, that he (and only HE) should be credited for xmule. He told me, he hates GPL.
Jan 29 03:14:25     ya i've discussed w/ my lawyer how i can avoid gpl issues too

No good omen. He doesn't like amule, because he thinks HE was the one who made amule "possible"

Jan 29 03:05:55     i created the community that made amule possible
Jan 29 03:06:00     i brought kry and bigbob together
Jan 29 03:06:06     i creatd much of the code you now use
Jan 29 03:06:13     and now you put me through all this shit
Jan 29 03:06:17     well i'm not stopping
Jan 29 03:06:26     and you guys are just pushing me to more extreme ends
Jan 29 03:06:52     no we are not.

Jan 29 03:08:01     i realize it's all about prestige

As far as I remember, Creteil forked amule, because Un-Thesis did not want his patches for the gui. They got into some argue / trouble and as a result of it, Kry and Creteil started amule.
Now, what I want to say, is, that Un-Thesis thinks he must get credited for his work - which is obvoiusly wrong. He had to go GPL because lmule was GPL because emule is GPL. I think, if he wants to get credited, he must create a new ed2k client FROM SCRATCH and use another license. and leaving us the gui

Jan 29 02:26:15      it's simple really
Jan 29 02:26:18      really fucking simple
Jan 29 02:26:51      you put me in charge of the protocol library and you guys can do what you want w/ the gui
Jan 29 02:27:03      xmule and amule guis will still exist only on a shared library
Jan 29 02:27:34      the library specs would use an opensource corss-platform socket+thread library other than wx but would not be
an exe but a library
Jan 29 02:27:46      the library would be lgpl'd
Jan 29 02:28:00      of course this won't happen
Jan 29 02:28:09      you'll find the amule devs quite unresponsive
Jan 29 02:28:12      at least the leaders

is an offense. For me at least, this sounds like "give these amule children something they can play with and I do the real important stuff"
This also looks like he wants to be in control of the library. this means, when he ever realises his commercial *mule, and puts something in the protocol lib that the commercial mule has special rights, we can not change that. And I do not like that idea.

So, I'd say: Un-Thesis, you have xmule, we have amule, the team that does better work wins. You can do what you want with your client, you can have a non-democratic team, you may be the "leader" - but leave us with amule. We have a fine team (TEAM!) here, we do not lie to each other, you know we have troubles too but we are a TEAM. And, looking at the growing community, we have done good work.

Thanks.
Citroklar


found some more things:

Jan 29 03:14:46       what's wrong with gpl?
Jan 29 03:14:52       amule

Jan 29 03:20:39       YOU take the credits for anyone else's work!
Jan 29 03:20:47       not fair I think
Jan 29 03:20:56       naw i wouldn't
Jan 29 03:21:05       i haven't
Jan 29 03:21:14       well not much

and

Jan 29 03:19:33     i personally don't look at amule code

quote from the xmule changelog:

Version 1.7.1
-------------
2003/11/21

Un-Thesis' Contributions:

   * Implemented nearly 100% of aMule-1,1,2's network modifications that worked.


I think I don't have to comment on that.

[pure_ascii]

Originally posted by Citroklar
He had to go GPL because lmule was GPL because emule is GPL. I think, if he wants to get credited, he must create a new ed2k client FROM SCRATCH and use another license.

Well, I don't know about GPL and LGPL so much in detail, but I think that's true, so there would be no way using eMule sources anymore - not acceptable.

This also looks like he wants to be in control of the library. this means, when he ever realises his commercial *mule, and puts something in the protocol lib that the commercial mule has special rights, we can not change that. And I do not like that idea.

Yepp, that's what I fear, too.

For these two reasons I voted "ignore", not counting any personal opinion about Un that makes me think it's impossible to work together with him.


Ciao, pure_ascii.

[muckmuck]

IŽm no dev, just a user, but I followed his escapades for a long time.
I voted for telling him to stop saying bullshit Žcause thatŽs what he does! Just look at the xmule homepage! My personal opinion is that you canŽt trust him. IŽm afraid sooner or later he causes trouble again and fools you. So get rid of this kiddy!

[carlo]

I voted 'ignore', which I suppose means to turn it down.
The reason is that the majority of the current team can't cooperate with Unthesis,
some even hate him.  Therefore I see problems in the case where amule would
depend on a library that is maintained by Unthesis alone.

Technically the idea of having a standalone library that does the e-donkey protocol is appealing. It is sad that things have to go this way and cooperation is not possible.

[seneca]

I voted "Ignore" -- what hopefully means to tell him politely that aMule users and devs are not interested -- because

[list=1]

• From what I read Un-Thesis doesn't understand much of the *Mule file-sharing network. I fear that the combined project might end as a leecher client.
• We'll end up arguing about things instead of developing, partially due to Un-Thesis special way to evalute other peoples contributions. This already happend in the xmule irc channel.
• A seperate core/GUI client is already on it's way althought I would personally prefer a common libary instead of a commandline core.

[Avi]

I voted "Accept it". Why? I believe the guy is a good and obviously experienced coder. He can only improve the client, not make it worst. Also, the more developers (experienced ones)- the better.
Do I believe you should change the license? Telling you the truth, I don't really care... As a user, as long as I'm not affected by the licensing of the code, I won't even look at the license once.
Do I think you should "assign" the protocol to him only? Maybe. Assigning tasks for each developer is a good thing for a project. Of course, if Kry or any other developer wants to add some protocol code or improve it, he (or other developer) should certainly be allowed. Look at the ShareDaemon project for a great example of tasks assigning (Madcat-wxInterface; bothie-Core; etc...).

HopeSeekr obviously cares about the client and the community. It looks like he's constantly trying to work things out with you guys. Lower your "shields" and give the idea of working together with him another chance. Who knows.... you might find out that you did something great.