|
Hi Matthew,
>Since I've been included in this debate, I'd like to add my 2 cents. I agree
>with Wensong, despite this being what you say is a total re-write (I haven't
>looked at the code, so I'm taking your word for it), the initial code,
>idea and logic are Wensong's.
Regarding the license, I will repeat my exact words from my previous e-mail.
----
According to my understanding, we have included the following license:
> * Virtual Server support for IP Masquerading
> *
> * This code is GPL.
> * It is Experimental software.
> *
> * Written by Peter Kese (peter.kese@xxxxxx)
> * This code is heavily based on the old IP Port Forwarding & Virtual
> * Server code written by Wensong Zhang.
> *
> * For more information, check http://proxy.iinchina.net/~wensong/ippfvs
> * or send an e-mail to peter.kese@xxxxxx
> *
> *
> * Changelog:
> *
> * 1998 - 1999: Linux 2.0 Virtual Server patch
> * Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> * 05-May-1999: Port to 2.2, complete rewrite of the code, scheduling modules
> * Peter Kese <peter.kese@xxxxxx>
It seems fairly reasonable to me. If you are not happy with the above
license, please send me text that you are happy with.
----
What else would you like us to do?
>Next, Wensong didn't come up with nor implement the idea of load-balancing
>modules. That was entirely my own idea and he graciously choose to allow into
>the development stream. Even though you give credit to Wensong, you don't
>give credit to me or anybody else who contributed.
Please send me text that you would like to have included in the above.
>Is think the main problem here is what Wensong expressed. The Virtual Server
>Project is in danger of having split development. Wensong was the originator
>of this idea and is the maintainer of the virtual server code. Maybe I'm
>being too militant to say that these seems like an attempt to hijack the
>development, as in, everything before 2.2 is Wensong's and everything
>after is Peter's.
I believe that this is becoming hair splitting about license wording. We
do not want to take credit away from anyone. I will repeat - send me text
that you are happy with.
>Personally, I've always tried to help Wensong and I know that he doesn't have
>time to look into all these things. I don't think he would have had a
>problem with you doing the work or being given credit for the re-write.
We appreciate Wensong's contribution very much. I believe that our
workding above is fairly explicit about giving him credit.
>I think it's a tremendous contribution. It's the fact that you didn't
>collaberate with him or the mailing list to try to keep the development
>on both streams going in the same direction that's bothersome. And the
>fact that you didn't give proper and legal credit to the original code
>this was based on, including my contribution. See the example from
>Alan Cox in ip_fw.c below.
Your statements are not true. We have been collaborating with Wensong and
the mailing list as closely as possible. All our comments and our source
enhancements have been promptly made public. Credit to Wensong is quite
explicit in the license above. We will be very happy to add a credit to
your work.
Rok
--
Rok Sosic
TurboLinux cluster development
rok@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
