Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Miro Replies to Mambo Allegations 74

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
Rico! writes "Miro aka The Mambo Foundation has finally provided answers to some thorny questions and also fired back at the Rebel Developer Alliance." Here is the Slashdot story covering the original split where the developers all jumped ship.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Miro Replies to Mambo Allegations More

Miro Replies to Mambo Allegations

Comments Filter:

  • Correct link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Karamchand ( 607798 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @10:58AM (#13366592)
    Correct link [ricshreves.net], since the link in the story is to the main page.
    • Miro is the bad guys here - I should know I am an Ex-Core Developer of Mambo, I resigned when Miro last tried to take over mambo!

      • Re:Correct link (Score:4, Informative)

        by Trepalium ( 109107 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @12:52PM (#13366990)
        The only mention I see of this is in the Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com] which is rather sparse on details. Ars only mentions this prior dispute in one paragraph, and is devoid of any links to the full story. Here's what little Ars had to say about this:
        Mambo originated from an Australian company known as Miro who decided to open source their code by putting it up on SourceForge and licensing it under the GPL. The open source community got a nice CMS and Miro had the open source community patching and improving its CMS. Everything went swimmingly for a while until Miro decided that it was taking back "their" code. Access to the code was shut off and the community vociferously objected. Fortunately because the code was GPL'd, the open source community was eventually able to pressure Miro to fork the code. And thus Mambo was born.
        Either way, the last time Miro acted unilaterally in regards to Mambo, the developers objected, why did they think it would be different this time?

        • Mambo originated from an Australian company known as Miro who decided to open source their code by putting it up on SourceForge and licensing it under the GPL. The open source community got a nice CMS and Miro had the open source community patching and improving its CMS. Everything went swimmingly for a while until Miro decided that it was taking back "their" code.

          Miro's motives in GPL-ing Mambo in the first place is a puzzle if they wanted the open source development to assist their commercial product. Ap

        • I don't know. And why does he think the responses given are even remotely in his favor?

          He essentially gives reasons for what he did, but he never claims he did not do it.

          Lame. He suggedted that the devs did not get on the foundation because it would take them away from their programming work. Honestly, don't they deserve to be there even if they quit developing? Or is he saying programmers dont make management material?

          His whole reply was transparent.

      • Re:Correct link (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Earered ( 856958 )
        Well, just to add fuel on the fire:

        Wasn't Manbo Open Source a GPL version of an old version of Miro's Manbo proprietary CMS?

        And when the Open version got so much plug-in Miro attempted to get the Mambo Open Source CMS API to match their last Mambo proprietary CMS API? Without results? (IIRC, one or two years ago, when I used Mambo open source for a website).

        As an user of this CMS, it feels like Miro mades some strange moves (they probably did not expect the sources of their old CMS to become something that

  • Mambo? (Score:1)

    by woah ( 781250 )
    So, ehm.. did he have to do a mambo [rawle.org] to refute the allegations?

  • So. . .Miro gutted? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @11:26AM (#13366693) Homepage Journal
    My impression is basically that the core devs were unhappy with Miro and left, intending to fork. Is Miro's main beef that the Miro fork wil die while the Rebel fork will survive, making Miro the victim of essentially a brain drain? If Miro's stated objective is the continued survival of Mambo, what's the big deal? Mambo survives, and maybe Miro becomes irrelevant. Ideally, this shouldn't bother the folks at Miro, since the core devs are still in essence working on Mambo.

    Just my $0.02.

  • For those who don't know what mambo is... (Score:4, Informative)

    by WTBF ( 893340 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @11:26AM (#13366695)
    Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]

  • Fork, and rename (Score:4, Funny)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @11:29AM (#13366704) Homepage
    If the developers are going to fork, they should probably rename the product. "Mambo" is too generic. Something containing "Portal" would be more appropriate.

    "Webportal" is not a registered trademark.

    • Re:Fork, and rename (Score:4, Funny)

      by NoOneInParticular ( 221808 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @12:18PM (#13366849)
      Not sure why this scored funny, but I think it's an interesting thought for open source software. What would happen when open-source software would just start using generic names that absolutely cannot be trademarked. Given the nature of open source, having or not having a trademark is fairly irrelevant, so why not use this. I can see it now:

      Mambo renames to webportal

      firefox renamed to browser

      openoffice renamed to:

      word processor

      spread sheet

      etc.

      linux (and(!)/or BSD) renamed to 'operating system'

      This is going to be a ball!

      • Sounds good - except that all of those are easily trademarkeable in any country using a language other than English. And of course, the names won't sound generic in any other language either.

        Of course, you could have all software have different names depending on the country. Won't it be fun for the english-speaking developers to figure out what the "kalkylblad" bug is all about?

        Oh, and who decides what software gets to have the generic title? Or will they all have the same name - is "spreadsheet" openoffic
      • I actually think that would be a good idea. It would be a lot easier to sell "Mozilla Browser" to someone than "Mozilla Firefox", although Mozilla itself is kind of an odd name. I love Firefox, but I can't even count how many times I've gotten a very odd look, followed by: "You want to deploy a program called Mozilla Firefox to all of the mission critical workstations? HA!"
      • And all the restaurants can be named Taco Bell.
    • You can't get a registered trade mark (RTM) (in UK at least, and so I guess Europe too) for a generic term.

      Webportal is a generic (descriptive of the tech.) term.

      Macdonalds can't RTM the word "beefburger" because it describes the goods. An RTM is a reference to the origin of goods, hence "Big Mac" is fine as it has nothing to do with beef burgers.

      Get it?

      So, web portal can't be an RTM (but a specific font layout could be, I think). "beefburger" could be registerd for a web portal though, as it's not descript
      • Excuse me, but the point of the parent is that the name does not need to be trade marked, at all. It's not being sold, after all.

        I think it's a very interesting idea. It could actually reinforce the drive to standards.

  • Hm. (Score:1)

    by Elixon ( 832904 )
    http://ricshreves.net/content/view/116/47/ [ricshreves.net]

    "Miro's role in the Foundation was to pay for its establishment." = Investment? Charitas?

    "fees for 3rd party developers are set at US$1,000 per year" = aka Microsoft certified developers?

    "Rules also need some kind of consequence for not following them, or they become ineffective." = Free software is just about freedom, heh?

    Mambo Steering Committee without Core Developers? So it will not be the Development Steering Committe, right? Is it Business Steering Committee t

  • Via via (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bbc ( 126005 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @12:29PM (#13366887)
    As an entrepeneur who uses Mambo commercially, I find it odd, to say the least, that Miro have been acting dumb on their websites. Of course, one should not needlessly frighten one's customers, but if your top developers run away, at least some assurance that business will continue as usual would have been nice.

    Now they are pretending that nothing has happened. Does the emperor really expect us not to notice his lack of clothes?

    It would have been better if Miro had responded directly, rather than via 3rd parties.

    • Re:Via via (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jschmeling ( 903162 )
      If they respond then they give both visibility and credibility to the developers, and not everyone understands the nuts and bolts of how the development is done. Ignorring this ensures that only some people, those who pay attention to development and the community, know about the split, while discussing it on their site will ensure that decision-makers also are aware of the problem. So, it's unlikely that they will visibly respond on their site, at least not until they notice they are losing their audience.

  • Best thing Miro could do now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Sunday August 21, 2005 @01:31PM (#13367147)
    The best thing Miro could do now is an all-out backpedal with appologies to the core developers of Mambo, a redo of their fondation rules and a free beer for all core participants at the next Mambo convention.
    Right now _everybody_ is looking at this and it is ultra-evident that Miro did a big screw up. The interview emphasises this once again.
    The way this whole foundation was built is just plain silly. The conditions for joinging are simular to SCO licences and that tells a lot.
    Unless the core team really screws up with their successor, this can only turn out bad for Miro. If they don't admit a mistake and see the utter insult their foundation rules are to core developers they will disappear into insignificance in less than a year.
  • I hereby hand over to henchmen on Miro payroll (aka "Foundation Administrators") the exclusive total and unrevocable ownage of my ass - and everything attached to it.

    I am aware of the fact that this blessing costs me an anual fee of mere 1000$ (US). Which is so totally a once-in-a-lifetime super-bargain, since now above mentioned henchmen will give me an acknowledging nod and a pat on the head whenever I make an improvement suggestion for Mambo.

    signed

    Stupid Me

    (currently residing in Dads basement)

  • Miro and the community (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    7. The Terms & Conditions for membership provide for a number of penalties which can be invoked against members who run afoul of the rules -- including monetary penalties. What is the thinking behind this? Give me some examples of when those might be invoked.

    In order to build real community, there has to be community rules and guidelines. Rules also need some kind of consequence for not following them, or they become ineffective. Our goal is to make the environment as effective as possible. An Open S
  • flying-off-the-handle reactionary angry programmers:


    Did the Development Team give warning of this action or seek compromise prior to publishing the Open Letter?

    No, the notice was their first and only action.

    Sad.. this could have been solved if they would have communicated to management, if things didn't happen then they could go public. As is they're just being self-absored primadonna attention whores, eliciting thousands of posts from people around the internet. This co

  • [...] and also fired back at the Rebel Developer Alliance.

    That blast came from the Death Star! That thing's operational!

  • Wow, their answers sure don't help. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @03:01PM (#13367536) Homepage

    So I read the 20 questions and answers. I'm also slightly involved with Mambo -- not as a developer, but as a contractor who gets paid to deploy Mambo for companies. So I've seen the community at work, and I think I have a handle on it (though admittedly from an outsider's perspective).

    All I can say is, wow. If Miro thought the publication of those answers would paint them as reasonable, they've really lost it. They start out sounding cool & collected, but quickly veer into crazy-town. For example, question #8 asks why no developers are on the Board. Their answer is OK at the start, basically "hey, Andrew and Brian from the dev team were going to be on board." If that's all you read, they sound fine. But they go on to admit that they later decided -- for the developers, without input -- that the Board was too much for them. Solution? They decided to have no devs on the board.

    And just like that, their answer has gone from cool & collected to an admission of stupidity. They're not stupid to think that being on the Board is tough, mind you. It probably is, and it probably does mean that any developer on the Board would have little time left to BE a developer. But they are stupid to think that they would determine what is "too much" on their own, without allowing the developers to decide their own fate, and doubly stupid to think that the only solution is to choose one or the other. There must be dozens of possible ways to compromise or collaborate.

    What else? Let's see. Although they don't explicitly list the names of people who it will apply to, they do state that core team developers must also be members. And guess what? Members can be penalized financially if they break Miro's rules. Isn't that a whopper of a chilling effect on development? I sure as hell won't volunteer my time on a project that will bill me if I'm deemed to be "too rude" on the forum, or whatever their rules are.

    It's bizarre to me to think that anyone could expect something like this would go over well with the volunteers. It's no surprise to see nearly every major code contributor walking away from Miro. Anyone who stays has to be wealthy, out of it, or completely passive and compliant.

    Miro, from one "project leader" to another, all I can say is that I'm happy -- thrilled -- when someone contributes code to my projects. I can't imagine erecting all these hurdles. I can't imagine treating volunteers like 5-year-olds, who need "consequences" for their naughty behavior. If bad behavior is a problem, the correct course of action is to cut ties with that developer. Grow up.

  • Well, this is going nowhere (Score:3, Insightful)

    by khendron ( 225184 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @05:14PM (#13368139) Homepage
    Not that there was much doubt as to this happening, but this issue has officially devolved into a "did not, did too, he said, she said" issue.

    All the users of Mambo can really do now is sit back and see which group delivers a better product.

  • And for More on the Whole She-bang (Score:3, Informative)

    by sjvn ( 11568 ) <sjvn@NOSPAm.vna1.com> on Sunday August 21, 2005 @09:03PM (#13369161) Homepage
    from both sides see:

    Mambo Executives, Developers Fight for Project Control

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1850298,00.as p [eweek.com]

    Steven
  • It's interesting how this kind of "Community, but if you get out of line, we'll bite you" style of OSS product management is evil when seen in the context of a GPL product, yet no-one objects even slightly to the fact that Sun has been doing this to Java for years.

    Before you can release any java code that implements java.* packages, there are non-disclosure agreements and compliance contracts you have to sign, so that you can't tell anyone about the horrors they will inflict on you if you release something
    • yeah, but at least we can say bad things about sun and not get fined :)

      You dont need to sign NDAs to implement the Java APIs, but the conditions say "dont add or remove anything", primarily to stop MS subverting it again. What you do need NDAs for is for the test kit to prove compliance. NDAs and OSS are so incompatible it hurts -you cannot discuss what tests are failing on a public mailing list, which is silly.
      • Ah but you do need to sign an NDA ... because the conditions on the license for distributing the APIs say that you're not allowed to release anything that implements the APIs without passing the TCK. I got pulled up on this by a Sun staff member when releasing my servlet container implementation.

        Couldn't agree more though otherwise about NDAs.
        • aah, forgot about that bit of bollocks.

          Overall, I think the whole TCK stuff sucks. Secret compliance tests indeed. How can I make my own redist of something like Axis (with javax.xml classes) without making the statement about compliance, and how can I do that without the TCK.

          We need to do better. That is why things like ruby and python appeal to me: no sun in charge. And the grid related standard that I am working on? Its test suite is BSD-licensed and hosted on sourceforge; part of the gump nightly build.

Slashdot Top Deals

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Close