[Gt-eos] gtk source repo location

[Frank Scheiner]

Hi Brian, all,

On 10/12/2017 11:13 PM, Brian Lin wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Apologies if this has been decided on already but has there been a 
> decision made on the location of the post-EOL gtk source? I saw some 
> slides from a GDB meeting but it wasn't clear if it resulted in a final 
> choice.

Can you post these slides on the list or post a link to them if they're 
public?

  If this hasn't been decided, I suggest creating an open-gtk
> organization for which we can add EGI, OSG, WLCG, etc. teams.

The issue with "gtk" is that there's already a well-known toolkit ([1]) 
available that uses that name and adding "open" to it might even more 
confuse people which aren't familiar with the Globus Toolkit.

[1]: https://www.gtk.org/

And actually the Globus Toolkit is already open in the sense of open 
source code, but you're right that this will change with what Globus 
plans for the future with their "Globus Community License", if they 
still want to call their code base Globus Toolkit.

I'd like to propose another name:

Some time ago I created a GitLab group named "gnext" for this ([2]).

[2]: https://gitlab.com/gnext/

Let me explain the ideas behind the name:

* It's short, it's easy to pronounce - at least for central Europeans 
like me - and it has some meaning in it.

* It starts with a "g" which relates to "Globus (Toolkit)" but doesn't 
use the "Globus" trademark (btw "Globus Toolkit" and "Globus alliance" 
are also trademarks, see e.g. [3] at the bottom). I have some preference 
to use the letter "g" for my Globus related tools (e.g. gtransfer, 
gsatellite). So I'm a little biased here, of course.

[3]: http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/

* The "next" should make clear that it's the next thing after the Globus 
Toolkit or simply the future of the Globus Toolkit (in its current 
form). People should instantly recognize it as the future source of the 
Globus Toolkit after Globus abandoned it.

Not sure what you and others think of the name. Don't hesitate to 
discuss this. :-D

Sadly the name is already taken by an assumed empty GitHub account, but 
we could still ask GitHub to "free up" that account for use by us.

GitLab and/or GitHub also offer wikis and issue tracking, the latter 
could also be used to support users, in addition to a mailing list like 
the current gt-user list ([4]), which will most likely vanish in the future.

[4]: https://lists.globus.org/mailman/listinfo/gt-user

  There also
> seemed to be a question about licenses -- from the OSG point of view, I 
> believe the Apache 2.0 license should suffice as that's what we use for 
> our own software.

Yes and I also think a license change for future additions would only 
complicate things, although I personally prefer GPL licenses.

Cheers,
Frank

-- 
Frank Scheiner

High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS)
Department Project User Management & Accounting

Email: scheiner at hlrs.de
Phone: +49 711 685 68039

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2293 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.egi.eu/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20171013/936755f1/attachment.p7s>