gitology

[Peter McNabb]

I ran across this today:

http://www.amitu.com/gitology/

"Gitology is a knowledge-management system. It uses text files to store
data, in a special directory called a gitology repository. Gitology
repository itself is under a version control system. As of now only git
is supported as RCS backend."

...

"Gitology ships with a django application that can be used to expose the
blogs stored in gitology repositories on web. The application is called
gitology.d. This application supports basic blog and threaded comments,
along with feeds."

The project apparently started in July 2008. Looks like this project is
a cross between drupal and smug. Although the project goals are quite
different, there's probably quite a bit of overlap, and you may be
interested to see how they have chose to implement certain things.

-Peter

[Andrew McNabb]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:50:14PM -0700, Peter McNabb wrote:
>
> I ran across this today:
>
> http://www.amitu.com/gitology/

I just sent an email to the Gitology mailing list. It looks like they
have a lot that we don't have, and we have a lot that they don't have.
It would be great to see some collaboration.

Thanks for sending the link.

--
Andrew McNabb
http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/
PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868

[dan90]

Hm - one thing I keep meaning to mention on this list is that i would
be great if smug (and especially it's marvellous git libraries) were
released under a dual licence. as it stands, the GPL which covers smug
isn't compatible with the BSD-style licence that a lot of django apps
run on.

Is there any thought about moving in that direction from the
developers?

---dan()

>
> > I ran across this today:
>
> >http://www.amitu.com/gitology/
>
> I just sent an email to the Gitology mailing list.  It looks like they
> have a lot that we don't have, and we have a lot that they don't have.
> It would be great to see some collaboration.
>
> Thanks for sending the link.
>
> --

> Andrew McNabbhttp://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/

[Andrew McNabb]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:35:53PM -0800, dan90 wrote:
>
> Hm - one thing I keep meaning to mention on this list is that i would
> be great if smug (and especially it's marvellous git libraries) were
> released under a dual licence. as it stands, the GPL which covers smug
> isn't compatible with the BSD-style licence that a lot of django apps
> run on.
>
> Is there any thought about moving in that direction from the
> developers?

I would certainly be open to discussion. My personal policy is to go
with GPL as a default until someone requests a different license. I
think it would be very easy to persuade me to go with a different
license for gitlib. Is there any particular reason that a BSD-style
license would be preferable to the LGPL license?

--
Andrew McNabb

[dan mackinlay]

Pardon me for replying to the list with an inappropriate subject line.
although there was method to my madness.

> I would certainly be open to discussion. My personal policy is to go
> with GPL as a default until someone requests a different license. I
> think it would be very easy to persuade me to go with a different
> license for gitlib. Is there any particular reason that a BSD-style
> license would be preferable to the LGPL license?

as regard my personal test in licenses in general, no. Although i was
inspired to ask this question by the post about gitology - it seems
that it might be fruitful to share code across these two projects, and
gitology is explicitly BSD licensed. that means that, AFAICT smug may
freely reuse gitology's code, but gitology may not in turn reuse
smug's code. using alternative licenses for smug would be one approach
to handing this (potential) problem.

Since it seems the bulk of django-related projects in my experience
are BSD licensed, and if the lack of ability to exchange code is seen
as a problem by developers, then any license that solves that problem
seems fine. the BSD licence is trivially compatible, but i am not
enough of an expert to know if the LGPL is. perhaps someone on this
list could advise?

but that uncertainty would be the only reason to favour BSD over LGPL
as far as i am concerned.

---dan()

>>
>> Hm - one thing I keep meaning to mention on this list is that i would
>> be great if smug (and especially it's marvellous git libraries) were
>> released under a dual licence. as it stands, the GPL which covers
>> smug
>> isn't compatible with the BSD-style licence that a lot of django apps
>> run on.
>>
>> Is there any thought about moving in that direction from the
>> developers?

---
http://possumpalace.org/
http://del.icio.us/buttergod/
http://livingthing.org.au/