What would be needed to go to a full 1.5.0 release?

[t00fri]

as an experienced scientist I live with peer reviews of publications and research results since decades. So I know very well about this scheme, without which science could not prevail!

But unlike this community, peer reviewing in science involves scientists with PROVEN knowledge in their field of research.

Do you have some personal experience with professional level peer reviewing? If so let me know. Since you make such general statements above , it seems you must have plenty of experience?

Your general "sustained community" scenario outlined above gives no clue about how to assert the competence of the reviewers in relation to that of the people to be reviewed.

Sorry, but all this talking appears very "blue eyed" to me.

Bye Fridger

Fridger,

In software development, peer reviews are perhaps less competitive and more collaborative than in your field of scientific research. The reviewers and the people whose work is being reviewed are members of a team who share a common objective in assuring quality and improving productivity. They aren't generally focused on asserting their competence or proving their knowledge. Those things are usually self-evident anyway. Of course less experienced team members generally defer to and learn from those with more experience, and more experienced team members share their knowledge, to mutual benefit.

- Hank

Since you are explaining this to me, are you a professional software engineer? What's the basis of your statements?

The reviewers and the people whose work is being reviewed are members of a team who share a common objective in assuring quality and improving productivity.

This is obviously a commonplace that applies to any peer reviewed subject, including science of course. What else?

Bye Fridger

[hank]

Since you are explaining this to me, are you a professional software engineer?

As it happens, yes. But I'm certainly not claiming any expertise in non-commercial open-source Internet-based collaborative software development such as we're discussing here. This would definitely be an experiment.

- Hank

[ElChristou]

Guys, it's not that the conversation is not interesting, but before talking about an eventual structure of work, don't you think there is a first brick completely essential to the whole edifice? -> the copyright? Don't you think a wealthy OpenSource project should be build upon a shared copyright and not a 1 man copyright? To me this is the first problem that should be resolve... (perhaps here @ Shatters or perhaps for a future fork)

[t00fri]

Chris has no intentions to renounce on his copyright.. It would also be inappropriate. And he will reappear, that's for sure. If not in 1 week, maybe in 1 month or around Christmas.

But he will.

From the many conversations I had with him about this subject, it would be just crazy if I was not right, as to his reappearance.

Bye Fridger

[hank]

Guys, it's not that the conversation is not interesting, but before talking about an eventual structure of work, don't you think there is a first brick completely essential to the whole edifice? -> the copyright? Don't you think a wealthy OpenSource project should be build upon a shared copyright and not a 1 man copyright? To me this is the first problem that should be resolve... (perhaps here @ Shatters or perhaps for a future fork)

What could be more boring than discussing legal technicalities? As long as everything is released under GPL or something similar, what difference does it make what names are included in the copyright notice? But to suggest a very simple rule: the copyright notice for each source file would include the names of everyone who contributed code to the file. What more is needed?

- Hank

[hank]

Chris has no intentions to renounce on his copyright.. It would also be inappropriate.

Why would we need Chris to renounce the copyright on his work? He has granted everyone the right to use his code under the terms of the GPL. What more is needed?

And he will reappear, that's for sure. If not in 1 week, maybe in 1 month or around Christmas.

Perhaps if we left out some milk and cookies...

- Hank

(Note: At Christmas in the USA, children leave out milk and cookies for Santa Claus, hoping he will bring them presents.)

[ElChristou]

What could be more boring than discussing legal technicalities? As long as everything is released under GPL or something similar, what difference does it make what names are included in the copyright notice? But to suggest a very simple rule: the copyright notice for each source file would include the names of everyone who contributed code to the file. What more is needed?

True it's a boring topic... but what I mean is with a 1 man copyright, the owner is free to close the project and go for commercial for example. In this case, all the volunteers spirit previously under an OpenSource phylosophy will be stolen and disappear. Perso, this idea is not to my taste.
Now with a shared copyright, to go commercial (again as example) the decision must be taken by all owners.

So the idea is not to quit the copyright from Chris, it's to share it with active devs (why not updating the copyright each year). It's just a small change of point of view to avoid any bad surprise in the future.

Let's say tomorrow Fridger want to do his Cosmo stuff within Celestia (it's an example, this probably won't happen), at least Fridger will also own the copyright and be sure his work and the spirit he put in it will be respected.

Now you will say that in all case the soft is under GPL, so even if Chris want to make it commercial, no problem, a fork and all is fine.
Nope, this is unfortunately not true. A soft is ok, but also around it there is an image, a reputation, there is an existing presence on the "market" that must be developed and more important preserved. We see actually no effort to promote Celestia, fine. But if the situation change, the name itself become very important. If tomorrow the only owner of the copyright of a soft decide to go commercial (again as example), he leave without any trouble with a nice packaging, soft + reputation, all this result of the effort of a lot of people...

That what I find a bit disturbing in our actual state, a 1 man copyright, an owner that don't care about the community that help him to build the project, an owner that may be payed soon by a tierce person so who will lost his independence... resuming, if I was a coder I would think twice before spending my time on such project...

[Christophe]

There has been no transfer of copyright, Celestia is not a one man copyright project, nor is it shared copyright, it is multi-copyrighted.

Chris can't make a commercial version of Celestia since he's not the sole copyright holder, that would require either an agreement from all contributers or removing all code not written by himself. Both solutions are impractical and anyway I don't see him doing such a thing.

What he could do is work on a closed source version under NDA for a corporation/organisation which would be using it internaly without distributing it.

[ajtribick]

There has been no transfer of copyright, Celestia is not a one man copyright project, nor is it shared copyright, it is multi-copyrighted.

Really? The README file suggests otherwise.

[ElChristou]

There has been no transfer of copyright, Celestia is not a one man copyright project, nor is it shared copyright, it is multi-copyrighted.

Could you explain this? I see Copyright (c)2001-2006, Chris Laurel on the Read me...

Chris can't make a commercial version of Celestia since he's not the sole copyright holder, that would require either an agreement from all contributers or removing all code not written by himself. Both solutions are impractical and anyway I don't see him doing such a thing.

Commercial is just an example to illustrate doing something that would not be to the taste of the dev team or part of it.

What he could do is work on a closed source version under NDA for a corporation/organisation which would be using it internaly without distributing it.

Ok, but is that so different in essence with what I wanted to point out? Why a corporation/organization could use the work of lots of people without their approval?

In the existing scheme there is no dialogue. Imagine you are contacted by ESA; with what I call a shared copyright, you would be able to present to the community the ESA project, it could be discuss by all the owners publicly (or privately if necessary) and if there is consensus, fine for ESA, else the project won't suffer what we have to bear now...

[hank]

There has been no transfer of copyright, Celestia is not a one man copyright project, nor is it shared copyright, it is multi-copyrighted.

Chris can't make a commercial version of Celestia since he's not the sole copyright holder, that would require either an agreement from all contributers or removing all code not written by himself. Both solutions are impractical and anyway I don't see him doing such a thing.

What he could do is work on a closed source version under NDA for a corporation/organisation which would be using it internaly without distributing it.

To clarify, I think Chris could make a commercial version of Celestia, provided he complies with the GPL and releases the source. What he can't do is make a closed-source commercial version of Celestia. Or at least, he can't do that without running the risk of being sued by one of the other copyright holders.

- Hank

[ajtribick]

Or at least, he can't do that without running the risk of being sued by one of the other copyright holders.

Again the question arises: what other copyright holders? According to the README file, there aren't any.

Then again, my understanding of how the GPL interacts with copyright is pretty much nonexistant.

[hank]

There has been no transfer of copyright, Celestia is not a one man copyright project, nor is it shared copyright, it is multi-copyrighted.

8O Could you explain this? I see Copyright (c)2001-2006, Chris Laurel on the Read me...

The mere presence of a copyright notice does not in itself establish a valid copyright. You can't claim a copyright unless you're the author (or the copyright has been assigned to you by the author). Chris can't just put his name on Fridger's code (for example) and thereby obtain the copyright without Fridger's agreement. At least, that's my understanding (IANAL).

- Hank

[ElChristou]

There has been no transfer of copyright, Celestia is not a one man copyright project, nor is it shared copyright, it is multi-copyrighted.

Could you explain this? I see Copyright (c)2001-2006, Chris Laurel on the Read me...

The mere presence of a copyright notice does not in itself establish a valid copyright. You can't claim a copyright unless you're the author (or the copyright has been assigned to you by the author). Chris can't just put his name on Fridger's code (for example) and thereby obtain the copyright without Fridger's agreement. At least, that's my understanding (IANAL).

- Hank

So I suppose that's what Christophe was pointed with this multi-copyright.
Now is one of the older able to use the result the whole compiled source (including part from other olders) without approbation? I mean without at least explaining his project and asking permission?

[ElChristou]

BTW, I'm astonished to see that if Celestia has such mutli-copyright, none of the olders asked to change the Readme...

[hank]

Now is one of the older able to use the result the whole compiled source (including part from other olders) without approbation? I mean without at least explaining his project and asking permission?

I believe that all of the Celestia source code has been released under GPL. So anyone (not just Chris or other copyright holders, but anyone) can use it in their own project, provided that they make all the source code for their project available on the same terms. Legally, nobody has to ask anybody for permission to do this. Permission has already been given by releasing the code under GPL. Understand that GPL is not intended for restricting the use of code. Just the opposite. It's intended for ensuring that code is freely usable. Copyright holders retain the right to use and license their own code on other terms than GPL, but because of the multiple copyrights entwined in the code it's generally not practical for them to do so. So a copyright on GPL code doesn't really mean much to the individual copyright holders. That's why they often don't worry too much about the copyright notice.

- Hank

[ElChristou]

I believe that all of the Celestia source code has been released under GPL. So anyone (not just Chris or other copyright holders, but anyone) can use it in their own project, provided that they make all the source code for their project available on the same terms. Legally, nobody has to ask anybody for permission to do this. Permission has already been given by releasing the code under GPL. Understand that GPL is not intended for restricting the use of code. Just the opposite. It's intended for ensuring that code is freely usable. Copyright holders retain the right to use and license their own code on other terms than GPL, but because of the multiple copyrights entwined in the code it's generally not practical for them to do so. So a copyright on GPL code doesn't really mean much to the individual copyright holders. That's why they often don't worry too much about the copyright notice.

Ok, so seems the GPL avoid any control of the use of the code...
Finally I begin to wonder if GPL is the best choice for an ambitious project like Celestia...

[Christophe]

Yes Hank, you're perfectly right. Unless copyright has been explicitly transfered each author retain copyright on the code he or she produced, the notice in the readme is irrelevant. Idealy each file should include a copyright notice of all contributers for that particular file, I personaly often forget to put it, but the CVS log is as good a proof of ownership.

Now, as you say the GPL doesn't put any restriction on the use of the code (in v2, that's different in v3) to the contrary it explicitly excludes any restriction on the use of the code, in section 0:

The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).

That's why the GPL is not a click-through licence, you are not required to accept it to install or run the program.

Moreover, there are no restrictions to what you can do with the source as long as you do not distribute your modified version. NASA, ESA or whoever else are free to build on Celestia without asking permission from anyone. Even if they were to publish the result of their work, the only obligation, but that is a very strong one, is that it would be under the GPL as well.

Now is one of the holder able to use the result the whole compiled source (including part from other olders) without approbation? I mean without at least explaining his project and asking permission?

As one of the copyright holder you have the exact same rights as anybody else on other contributers' code, that is you are bound by the terms of the GPL. You are free to relicence only the code you wrote.

[ElChristou]

...Moreover, there are no restrictions to what you can do with the source as long as you do not distribute your modified version. NASA, ESA or whoever else are free to build on Celestia without asking permission from anyone. Even if they were to publish the result of their work, the only obligation, but that is a very strong one, is that it would be under the GPL as well...

Ok for the copyright, it's definitively not the mean to keep the cohesion of the project.

What other option do we have to avoid this actual 1 man show and the slow disintegration of the project? Only by increasing the dev team as suggested by Hank?

[Bluespace]

Are the necessary SSC files, textures, all made by Chris ?

Laurel, Christopher
claurel@shatters.net
626 Randolph Pl
Seattle, WA 98122
US
Phone: 206-329-1731

Does that phone rings

1 ) enough with the "copyright" That part sucks, big, no one is going to live till our sun dies (or the earth slips out of orbit )
global warming, and maybe war might end it all in 30-50 years


2) they say ubuntu was based on debian, zenwalk was based on slackware,
and all have the linux kernel, other GNU packages, (but which name do we remember from this list first) with so many peoples involved /programmers/users/schools/, and new flavors keeps coming, and it wont end (if the kernel is put in linus's locker), as long as we are humans

and i believe celestia is like that, the code is here, time is here, peoples who believe they can take celestia to the far more steps, million of peoples are looking to know the truth about the universe, and they see celestia as a small step towards it, (i would really like to fly through the "local group" and the other galaxy clusters in celestia )


3) so why this thread keeps on going (talking about copyrights, and small fixes), until the 1 man arrives. and it all goes back again as it was (as you say):)


4) go go go . ..................................................


Thanks