[ubuntu-uk] [OT] Open Source Project kafuffle...

[James Milligan]

Harry Rickards wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> James Milligan wrote:
>   
>> Off-topic I know, but does anyone have roughly any idea what to do?
>>
>> An open source project which I contribute to (in small amounts, through 
>> documentation/support etc), has effectively 'gone' - the lead developer, 
>> who owns the website, basically makes the software etc - has 
>> disappeared, and answers no messages via email/facebook etc, doesn't pay 
>> the website hosting fees (causing the website to show unavailable etc).
>>
>>     
> <snip>
>   
>> License:
>> 1. You agree that you will not amend contents of this forum software, 
>> repackage it and distribute it to others unless specified elsewhere in 
>> this agreement or when consent is given by the developers of this software.
>>
>> I'm assuming that that means that I can't do anything about it?
>>
>> Is there any way around this, as he has given up with no announcements etc?
>>
>> Any help would be appreciated!
>>
>> James
>>
>>     
>
> How much do you contribute to the project? If you contribute code, could
> you not classify yourself as a developer of the software, and give
> yourself permission to amend the contents, repackage and distribute it?
>
> - --
> Thanks
> Harry Rickards <hrickards at l33tmyst.com>
>
>   
Hi Harry,

Not a coder by heart - I can modify really small amounts to change the 
way something works, but I certainly would never class myself as a coder 
of sorts.

Like I said I'm more a front-end man - helping people out with support 
on the forums (or I did), and I was creating the documentation for the 
next version of the software.

Actually, from you pointing out the last few words, I think that might 
be the little hole we could use - the coders are (well I've spoken to 
one who I tracked down on facebook) pretty much behind relaunching the 
software, so I assume it'd be fine if he came back at us and started 
having a go. Mind you, if he did reappear, we'd be more than happy to 
let him back as the lead dev, and go back to how we were.

What do you reckon to the legality of that though? I mean it explicitly 
states 'the developers of the software', which the coders /are/, so 
certainly if there's a majority, it ought to be right?

Thanks for your help.

James