I'm one of the 30 other individuals that acutally patched and commited changes for Bob to include in nvd3.js; I'm looking for contacts for the other 29 contributors. (Please contact me at using the feedback form on congocart.com or master-technology.com) I would like one of us (I'm willing to volenteer) to contact Mr. Qunibi of Novus partners in a position of consensuses from those who actually have code in the product.
My thoughts that would I believe be amicable (i.e. win/win) to both sides is that they can have our permission to take ALL of our changes closed source in the own future versions as long as we also (the community) may use the last release under the open source (Apache) license it has been under since shortly after it was released on there official novus github account and go our own separate way. I know my changes were really early to the library and some of my code may not even exist anymore (lol).
But I believe the cost for them to audit the whole library and rip out all of our changes and rewrite it all could be major -- I believe Bob could legally remove all of our code; but for the actual re-implementation Bob would have to hand it off to someone to do a fully clean-room version to make them legally safe from being sued. And that could be very costly in time and resources. Cost wise for them It might even be cheaper for them to ditch the last 6-7 months of changes and to just revert to the version before my patch/commit (which was issue #3 <G>). So I think we might be able to make this a win/win proposition if I can get the consensuses of the other 29 contributors.
Nathanael A.
I'm one of the 30 other individuals that acutally patched and commited changes
for Bob to include in nvd3.js; I'm looking for contacts for the other 29
contributors. (Please contact me at using the feedback form on congocart.com
or master-technology.com) I would like one of us (I'm willing to volenteer) to
contact Mr. Qunibi of Novus partners in a position of consensuses from those
who actually have code in the product.
My thoughts that would I believe be amicable (i.e. win/win) to both sides is
that they can have our permission to take ALL of our changes closed source
in the own future versions as long as we also (the community) may use the
last release under the open source (Apache) license it has been under since
shortly after it was released on there official novus github account and go
our own separate way. I know my changes were really early to the library
and some of my code may not even exist anymore (lol).
But I believe the cost for them to audit the whole library and rip out all
of our changes and rewrite it all could be major -- I believe Bob could
legally remove all of our code; but for the actual re-implementation Bob
would have to hand it off to someone to do a fully clean-room version to
make them legally safe from being sued. And that could be very costly in
time and resources. Cost wise for them It might even be cheaper for them
to ditch the last 6-7 months of changes and to just revert to the version
before my patch/commit (which was issue #3 <G>). So I think we might
be able to make this a win/win proposition if I can get the consensuses of
the other 29 contributors.
Nathanael A.
[0]: Use what's best for you, but I pasted in vim, then 5gqq 8G=G gg>G
The numerical prefix repeats commands in vim, so '5gqq' means '5 times, format line'. The default format will wrap the text to an acceptable level, and 5 lines encompasses the 3 text lines plus the whitespace. The command 'gqq' here is a single one, you can read more with ':help gqq'.
8G moves to line 8, and =G is a command combined with a movement. The = command by default will remove any indentation on these lines, and the 'G' movement means 'to the end of the file'. This will remove the indentation from the 2nd and 3rd lines/paragraphs and the signature.
gg means 'move to top' and >G is another action/movement. > indents lines, and G means 'to the end', so this indents every line by one.
QUOTE