Re: git repository

On 2014-11-10 22:28, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:

> The problem I see with github, SF and similar is that the code is not
> mine (or the code of others). It belongs to descendants of good old
> Commodore or whoever bought them, and noone is really sure about that. I
> am sure that github and SF prohibit such things to be hosted on their
> servers.

We discussed this some time ago. We also read and discussed the terms of 
service. My conclusion is that IF they find it offensive, we shall 
bother about it. Unless we believe that the ghosts of CBM copyright 
"owners" rise to harm the community (they can't profit from it - so the 
only goal could be to do harm), then the worst what can happen is that 
we'll have to move to a self-hosted upstream repository with a few days 
break in the service. Having that in mind and after probably too many 
thoughts I came to believe that the best way is not to prematurely 
optimise the infrastructure/approach in this context. As long as we use 
git, there is no problem of seizure at least.

And the other thing is that while the code is in fact written by 
somebody else, the documentation for it is done by "us". What we do for 
the community is we /document/ that old work. True, some ill-willed may 
question it but that's how I'd like to present it anyway. We put a 
substantial amount of work to help those old bits live rather than 
disappear from the existence.

-- 
SD!

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list