[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: init system discussion status

Keith Packard writes ("Bug#727708: init system discussion status"):
> In contrast, upstart has a developer community limited to Canonical
> employees and others who are able and willing to sign the onerous CLA
> associated with that software. [...]

You said on IRC that the CLA was an important factor for you.  I'm
going to make an attempt to persuade you that this is not a big
problem for Debian.

Firstly, I should say that I think the CLA is utterly ridiculous.
I want to be completely clear that like almost everyone else in this
conversation, I would certainly not sign it.

But: I think you overestimate the likelihood of Debian being on the
losing end of a fork.

If we adopt upstart as default in Debian, I expect we will accumulate
a number of important (CLA-less, obviously) patches in the Debian
package.  Debian will be an attractive place even for non-Debian users
to submit patches for the precise reason that we don't insist on
unjust copyright arrangements.  In fact, I would expect much of the
serious development to take place in Debian's version.

Finally, we shouldn't be afraid of the scenario where the Debian
version ends up being de facto the upstream.  We have become the
upstream for numerous programs of comparable size.  And, to put my
time where my mouth is, I'm willing to step up and contribute patches
and help maintain the Debian upstart package.  Personaly I think
upstart has the right approach and I think improving it sounds like

Like Andi, I think the risk to our autonomy from upstream is much
lower in the case of upstart than systemd.


Reply to: