[Koha-devel] KOHA version 3.0, my question is about the advantages of KOHA 4

[Chris Nighswonger]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Clay Fouts <cfouts at liblime.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Chris Nighswonger
> <cnighswonger at foundations.edu> wrote:
>>
>> standard. In the Koha community that standard has long been the code
>>
>> base in the main repo. So every fork is by definition only as nearly
>> "Koha" as it conforms to that standard. Thus, the larger the delta
>> between the fork and the main repo, the less the fork can be said to
>> be "Koha." Its an inverse relationship if that is clearer. At this
>> point in history, LibLime's fork has a pretty large delta and so is
>> less "Koha" than other forks.
>
> You speak like you haven't looked at the BibLibre diffs. I don't know that
> they're at any less of a delta than LibLime, and it's only getting larger.

Rather the contrary, I am familiar with the size of the delta between
BL's repo and the main repo. However, (as others have ably pointed out
to you) that delta is rapidly shrinking to BL's credit. and it appears
from the remainder of your statement that it is you who have not taken
time to accurately access those diffs.

> They are a very productive group. Where is your indignation when they call
> their product Koha? Software Coop, who apparently has no ambition to back
> port their own code, sells "Koha" support. Do you tell people that their
> software isn't really Koha? These folks are obviously selling work that
> differs remarkably from "Koha" as you've defined it, and to my knowledge
> they don't even differentiate it with a "BibLibre Koha" or a "Software Coop"
> Koha the way that LibLime has chosen to do.

Again, as others have pointed out, no one apart from LL/PTFS attempts
to "release" some "other" product which they call Koha and at a
minimum imply is an "official" release, trying to best the true Koha
by advancing a major version number in that "other" product.

> You can be chafed at the fact that LibLime took liberties that you don't
> like with the koha.org website, and I can accept and empathize with that.
> However, your contention that LibLime's code "isn't Koha" and somehow these
> other projects are is rather incoherent.

It appears that others on the list had no problem understanding my
train of thought. Perhaps the problem here is not so much with my
contention being incoherent as with your corporate enforced
presupposition preventing your own coherent understanding of my
contention.

<snip>

> The frequency with which we hear the phrase "New Zealand Koha" at
> conventions suggests the confusion may be deeper and more widespread than
> you have led yourself to believe.

Since I've never heard anyone refer to "New Zealand Koha," I would
have to say that you must move in a very limited circle at these
conventions. In practice, what is said at conventions usually ends up
on a list or blog somewhere, so I must beg to be pointed to a source
to support the assertion that this title is applied at all, much less
with "frequency."

And finally, at least I can speak what I believe without fear of
losing my job. I think that not many have that privilege, and so their
judgment tends to be clouded by pecuniary interests of some sort or at
a minimum they speak with a conflict of interest. If that steps on
some toes, so be it, but I believe it places those who occupy such
ground at the unique advantage of a rather more objective view of the
facts. If you disagree, that's certainly ok. Many a pilot has run his
plane into the ground because he would not yield to the more objective
view of the controller in the tower. I suppose we'll just have to sit
it out and see who's plane ends up nose first in the ground won't we?

Kind Regards,
Chris