• hobata@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    Well at first, nice that we have a kernel developer here, it’s not so easy to get your code into. And second, nope, I do not contributed to the kernel. I once wrote a module for educational purposes a long long time ago. Then FUSE came along and it helped me to solve the task with “more comfort”.

    • vapeloki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      I did contribute once. And it was a pain. 20 lines of code but hours of work, Mailinglists, feedback, …

      Don’t het me wrong , it was fun. But would I have done the same for BSD, so that apple could use this? Hell no

      • hobata@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        Perhaps this is our fundamental difference. I write code, solve my small task and have fun by doing it. If someone can get something of it, it’s twice as nice.

        • vapeloki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          And that’s fine. And everybody should license his code as he likes.

          But my point stands. String copyleft is important.

          That does not mean that LGPL is always a good idea, and charted is a good example, as the python stdlib is MIT licensed, and therefore an LGPL charted has no chance of getting accepted.

          Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.

          • hobata@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            I agree at the point, that everyone should use that license he like.

            Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.

            No, I think, that would not work this way, you have to ask every contributor, no matter how big the influence was. And everyone must agree unanimously. It’s almost an impossible task.

            • vapeloki@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 days ago

              I agree regarding consesus. Unlikely, but: heaving major contributions greenlighted and only replace parts of the code are fat note feasible.

              No communication happened to my understanding at any point with any contributor.