pouët.net

Open sourcing pouet.net ?

category: offtopic [glöplog]
kusma: Well, it'll be static on Amigaaaaa. That thing couldn't sustain the necessary frame rate anyway.

Also, I had a look at the 0.9 source code, and... OOH EMM EFF GEE. Even Joel Spolsky wouldn't hesitate for a split second before throwing it all away. o.O
added on the 2013-05-07 20:47:45 by kb_ kb_
metoikos: it is a lesson that applies outside of pouet too. I use it to great effect every day at work.
added on the 2013-05-07 20:48:31 by nic0 nic0
It would be legally gray to use, too. See my post on page 17.
@ kb_
BB Image
added on the 2013-05-07 20:50:03 by D.Fox D.Fox
Thank you kusma, now I'm blind.
added on the 2013-05-07 20:53:42 by gaspode gaspode
Gargaj: Awesome!
added on the 2013-05-07 20:54:24 by kusma kusma
added on the 2013-05-07 20:58:16 by kusma kusma
added on the 2013-05-07 20:59:15 by kusma kusma
kusma: there's a lot more fun stuff i forgot about.
added on the 2013-05-07 20:59:38 by Gargaj Gargaj
Ok, as stated on IRC, I didn't want to enter this flamewar, being too new on here and all that, but...

Quote:
Especially now that I know that the migration is not that great, no offense G.


Wait, what?

Quote:
Copyright (C) 2000-2013 Laurent Raufaste


Wait, WHAT?!
This is indeed illegal, you can't claim copyright over a codebase without contributors agreement.
added on the 2013-05-07 21:04:20 by ponce ponce
Apparently, not much happened at part #1024.
added on the 2013-05-07 21:05:06 by kusma kusma
@TheT
He can't do that. :) I noted that on page 17. He is not the only contributor. Unless the other contributors gave up their claims to copyright on the code they wrote or reassigned the copyright to analogue, analogue has no right whatsoever to claim copyright or change the license.
Quote:
You cannot just assign GPL to all that, as you have noted that you had contributors to the code other than you and it's quite likely they didn't sign a contributor agreement. So unless they're willing to give up their own implicit copyrights on their own contributions, assign them to you, or you're willing to rewrite those parts*, you can't just unilaterally relicense it.


I agree.

BTW, I'm disappointed with you, guys. Instead of sit down and collaborate, you are turning all this in a big ego-clash fight!
added on the 2013-05-07 21:06:08 by ham ham
Quote:
you are turning all this in a big ego-clash fight!

Who's "you"?
added on the 2013-05-07 21:07:09 by Tomoya Tomoya
BITS tagcloud <3 (:
added on the 2013-05-07 21:07:10 by gaspode gaspode
I'm sorry, do we actually know that he didn't get consent from all authors?
added on the 2013-05-07 21:08:05 by kusma kusma
AMcBain: Nobody will claim this mess, let's just advance.
Gargaj, PS, want your names on it ?

BTW, just fixed a huge hole, I hope the other holes left will be notified and fixed before I need to roll back.
added on the 2013-05-07 21:10:01 by analogue analogue
@analogue
that's not legally sound. you can't use what someone might do as reason enough.
@superadmin: I mean all this "Analogue vs Gargaj" thing, of course.
added on the 2013-05-07 21:10:41 by ham ham
It's also now proof that you didn't explicitly get consent, either.
kb: If you have an API you prety much solved the MVC-puzzle anyhow. What you want in the web is something like ViewModel/View which really do make sense (since the model is really in the API) but separating the view (html) from the js is perfectly fine and mostly needed.

How you implement an API over web really depends upon what technology/scaleability you opt for.

ORM is a necessity but it may be blendable with API - esp if you use SQL since otherwise SQL really doesn't make much sense (if you can't use proper transactions theres no need for sql). In the end its all about that the API is sane and can be refactored for an eternity without to much work for the front ends to coop with.
added on the 2013-05-07 21:11:26 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
AMcBain: ok, want me to rollback to pre shared coding ? I sure can.
added on the 2013-05-07 21:11:30 by analogue analogue

login