I'm surprised and disappointed you're still calling the first release of your fork "1.2". It's incorrect and misleading. There never was a 0.x let alone 1.0, or 1.1 of your fork.

Your "Wanna help to release NeoWikka earlier ?" and "before applying to be a beta tester" actually indicate it's not even a release so its version number should be 0.x: clearly you haven't accomplished your own 1.0 yet.

Please play by the rules and do your own numbering, and don't hijack that of Wikka Wiki suggesting it's an upgrade of that. It isn't.

Also confusing is that your English "changelog" (compared to your non-existing 1.1?) is quite different from your French description

JavaWoman

It looks like I have started some kind of opinion war. There's no official release of NeoWikka yet. And there's _no_ rules which say that I must start numbering NeoWikka at 0.0.0.0.something. Currently, the only available NeoWikka version is called "NeoWikka-1.2.0-20060715 snapshot". If you are familar with OpenSource development, you should have realized that a snapshot is not a release, especially a tarball (a .tar.bz2 file) with a date appended to its name. Why didn't you comment about NeoWikka version when I first mentioned it few months ago on the WikkaWiki site ? It seems like all software forks must have a version number less than the main software where they derive from ?

NeoWikka is a WikkaWiki's fork. It's obviously mentioned as is on the current page. And I believe that it's not "confusing" and "misleading" as you said.

I'm tired of this counter productive attitude from the WikkaWiki devel team. In the past, I asked to contribute to WikkaWiki, but nobody approved. Now, I come up with my own NeoWikka and everyone seems to be interested. What's wrong ? The official stable NeoWikka will be released under the terms of GPL in its 2.0.0 version even if WikkaWiki stays in its 1.1.6.x.y.z numbering schema.

Regards.

It is not customary, nor good form, to pick up version numbering from a release you are forking a new product from. As DarTar already pointed out, that was not the case with pnWikka. Likewise, SeaMonkey is not version 1.8 (or higher) even though it is based on the Gecko 1.8 engine - it starts right over at 1.0 precisely because it is *not* a new Mozilla suite release, but its own product. If you look into the history of RSS standards you'll find that such "my version is higher than yours" antics are not generally respected.

The fact that your NeoWikka is a fork is not confusing - as you state it's clearly labeled as such; it's your version number that is. You really can't give something a 1.2 version number (let alone 2.0!) when you didn't start with a 1.0 before that.

If you want to gain respect in the Open Source community, it's a good idea play by the rules. And get a real understanding of version numbering.

Why didn't I comment at first? Quite frankly, because I didn't take it seriously, "announcing" it as you did on the Wikka site. Now that you have at least moved this to your own site, it's time for scrutiny. :) But I suspect no one is going to take it _really_ seriously until you run your own site on your own software. Starting with your own version 1.0.

As you full well know, *anyone* can contribute to Wikka Wiki (and you don't need to ask - just post your code), but membership of the development team is by invitation only - *after* a proven record of valuable contributions of good quality.

I guess I can safely say that the Wikka Wiki development team is tired of *your* counter-productive attitude. It's not that we are interested - it's that we are irritated.

JavaWoman

BTW, I hope that you are aware that you are currently violating the terms of the GPL license under which Wikka was released.

I trust you will *quickly* repair this and distribute a new snapshot that does not violate these terms.

JavaWoman

First, it seems that nobody takes the NeoWikka fork that seriously except the current WikkaWiki devel team. Strange ! Second, as I already mentioned, the current snapshot version is 1.2.0-20060715. Why didn't you also criticize the number 20060715 ? Oh gosh, it seems that my NeoWikka is released more than 20 millions time compared to the lastest WikkaWiki release ! And what else if NeoWikka version were something like "NeoWikka XP, The Hottest Replacement of WikkaWiki" ?

Moreover, I wonder why a mere work in progress snapshot makes you talk about the terms of the so famous GPL license ? NeoWikka will also be released under the same terms of GPL in hope that it will be useful for the OpenSource community. Even if it violated those terms as you said, I don't believe that those facts deserve more attention than the pirated softwares on the net.

Last but not least, your attitude is what I qualify "counter productive". Instead of contributing codes or documentation to "your" WikkaWiki, you are here and try to fight for a meaningless numbering version. I will give NeoWikka the version number that I like and there's no standard about it. If you think my numbering schema is a problem, you should also send mails to Microsoft and tell them that Windows Vista should be called Mac OS 9.

The GPL license applies to any *distribution* - not just to official releases. Since you _are_ distributing your package, you must comply with the terms of the GPL. "Will be released" is meaningless with respect to the terms of the GPL - *distribution* is what counts (and distributing is what you are doing now). As you should know had you actually read the license. And in case you are confused: this is *not* about version numbering whichj is a separate issue entirely.

That it is a "snapshot" or "beta" does not make any difference: you're making it available here so you are distributing it. And calling it "a mere work in progress" is a bit silly - what else would it be? Wikka is a work in progress, too.

I'd advise you to actually *read* the GPL license that's included.

Numbering schemes are not "meaningless". Remember, Wikka itself started as 1.0.0 (as witnessed by the changelog you so helpfully included), even though it was forked from Wakka. A fork is a new product and a new product should start its own version numbering. The suffix 20060715 is merely a date - why should I comment on that? It's the version number that is at issue here. Releasing it as 1.2.0 (or even 2.0) when you didn't start at 1.0 is simply incorrect. Maybe there is no "standard" for version numbering, there is certainly best practice and convention. (See for instance http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html#basics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version)

Ignoring normal version numbering (and not starting at 1.0 or even lower while getting ready for a first release) is not going to earn you any kudos, let alone respect, especially not in the Open Source / Free Software community.

As to not much interest, have you considered (apart from what is already mentioned with respect to version numbering, conformance to GPL terms, and not actually running your own software here) that not many people can actually run PHP5 and MySQL5 on their server? Have you considered there is actually a reason Wikka is compatible with PHP 4.1 and MySQL 3.23? Just a thought.

JavaWoman

Duong-Khang,

la raison pour laquelle ton fork a soulevé tant d'intérêt chez les développeurs de Wikka est très simple. Personne d'entre nous ne gagne un centime pour le travail qu'on fait avec Wikka et la seule façon de protéger notre travail est le fairplay de la part des utilisateurs de ce logiciel. Pourquoi tant d'étonnement pour les "règles" qui s'appliquent à un fork? Parce que c'est la seule garantie que nous avons pour que notre travail soit correctement crédité. Le respect des règles tacites (comme dans le cas des numéros de version) ou explicites (comme dans le cas du droit d'auteur et des licenses), aussi bien que le rapport de confiance entre ceux qui écrivent du code et ceux qui s'en servent pour redistribuer une version modifiée de ce code - ce sont des conditions essentielles dans le monde du logiciel libre. Je soupçonne que tu serais aussi agacé si quelqu'un venait présenter *sur ton site* un fork d'un logiciel que tu développes,
- en cherchant de recruter *sur ton site* des développeurs pour ce fork;
- en t'accusant de ne pas travailler suffisamment au développement de ton logiciel;
- en utilisant un numéro de version qui donne l'impression d'une amélioration de ton logiciel et non pas d'un nouveau logiciel dérivé de ton code;
- en donnant l'impression de ne pas donner trop d'importance aux questions des droits et des licenses;

C'est pour cette raison que nous avoins "porté tant d'intérêt" à ton projet et - désolé - nous ne luttons pas pour "une question insignifiante comme le numéro de version", mais pour le respect de notre travail. J'espère que cela explique suffisamment mes commentaires sur wikkawiki.org et la suite de Marjolein (que j'endosse entièrement) postée dans cette page.

-- DarTar

All those comments for a different point of view on the version. Even if I didn't start numbering NeoWikka from 1.0 or 0.0.1, what's wrong ? And let's say, if it were given 1.0, would the next be 1.1.6.2.9.9.9.9... because the lastest WikkaWiki is at 1.6.1.2 ? In despite of what you call "convention" and "best practice", it's my choice to give it a marketing version. Anyways, NeoWikka deserves that because it's better and will be better than the WikkaWiki version that it derives from.

The current NeoWikka changelog might be incomplete with respect to the GPL terms. If you want to see all the changes, make a diff (see "man diff" if you don't know how to do that). It looks like you do not have enough arguments on the numbering schema so that you talk about the GPL and the software requirements. If you are afraid of the removal of your credits in NeoWikka, just double check, they're all there ! I did'nt remove anyone.

When I talk about MySQL 5.0 and PHP 5.0, I think about the future and the stronger OOP (Object Oriented Programming) implementation. It's also a choice that I've made for NeoWikka in order to support the cutting edge web technologies. It's also a reason of NeoWikka fork.

Je ne crois pas qu'il existe de règles dans les numéros de version, c.f le lien de wikipedia cité par Javawoman. Je donne à NeoWikka la version que je veux et tant pis si WikkaWiki reste dans les version 1.1.6.1.x.y.z. J'ai l'impression qu'il faut rester à un ou deux chiffres derrière WikkaWiki pour ne pas lui faire de l'ombre. Si tu as peur que j'aille trop vite, autant le dire de suite. Je trouve ça complètement ridicule de rester fixer sur l'histoire du numéro de version juste parce que 1.2.0 ça donne l'impression d'être meilleur que 1.1.6. Et alors, NeoWikka arrive avec son lot d'améliorations, il démarre pas à partir de rien, pourquoi devrai je lui donner un 0.0.1 ?

Je comprends que vous tenez tous à vos crédits dans le développement Open Source puisque ni toi ni moi ne gagne un sou là dessus. Mais, je n'ai enlevé personne, et NeoWikka garde et gardera toutes les traces de WikkaWiki, y compris vos chers crédits.

Enfin, j'avoue que le fait d'annoncer NeoWikka sur le site de WikkaWiki n'était pas très fairplay et je m'excuse. Je crois que j'ai déjà fait l'effort de déplacer NeoWikka sur mon propre site. Ce n'est pas encore suffisant ?

Pour conclure, tant que NeoWikka respecte les termes du GPL, ce qui sera évidemment le cas, je lui donne le numéro de version que je veux. Et sauf votre respect, vous n'avez rien à dire là dessus.

Yes, I do have something to say. One last remark (for now):
>>Pour conclure, tant que NeoWikka respecte les termes du GPL, ce qui sera évidemment le cas

This is clearly *not* the case. ("Sera" here - I'll say it again - is irrelevant - what counts for GPL is *distribution* not "release.) Only in the main wikka.php file do you have a reference to the GPL license. In many other files you have:
"Copyright (C) by Duong-Khang NGUYEN. All rights reserved."

"All rights reserved" is *contrary* to the terms of the GPL and clearly forbidden. Which, just to spell it out for you, is UNLAWFUL. (You also forgot the year so your copyright statement is incorrect besides being unlawful.)
You would know this if you had actually read the GPL license.

In addition, you put your copyright on files that include routines that are copyright of the copyright holders of the Wikka project or various individuals that have contributed code.

You *accepted* the GPL license by using and modifying the software. You *must* correct these violations of the GPL and make your _distribution_ legal. Any distribution, whether release or not.
We'll give you some time to do that, but I promise you we will check.

JavaWoman

I've fixed the year problem. It was only in one file.

"All rights reserved" is not contrary to GPL. Check the kernel sources, and you'll see it anywhere and the kernel is also under GPL. Ah, I forgot to indicate that I meant the Linux kernel source codes, not your Windows 2000 one, you won't be able to find it under GPL. Also check wikipedia, as usual, they have information about "All rights reserved".

And now, what's next ?