Good point about justification of the fork.

We thought about it, but decided against it, because it would pollute the actual announcement. People reading about the announcement care to know about what is announced, what it is and what it does. Directly in the announcement there is a link to the repository, which interested people could click on to get more info.

The README as of that day was
https://github.com/linuxaudio/new-session-manager/tree/fd813166d56acc2bc1503c1b50129c792496abd0

There is a chapter for "Fork and License".

Which, granted, does not explain the *why*.

We did not want to draw too much attention to NON since then they would see a whole ugly drama around it, and likely be demotivated to even try it. It would also make people confused about non-sm and new-sm, non and ntk, and all other things around it. Those in the know (basically anyone on the #lad channel) were aware of the situation.

There was nothing special about the announcement itself.
Only that we expected very ugly/nasty messages from you, as we had previous experience and knew what to expect. And that was exactly what happened. :(

On 04/01/21 01:00, J. Liles wrote:
Fillipe, when you announce a fork, your first responsibility (and the expectation of the readers) is that you will provide justification for the necessity of said fork. The justification you appear to provide is that Non is not "of the community" and is full of "ads" and "spyware."

I can think of no other way to interpret that announcement, even with your claim to innocence.


On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 4:57 PM Filipe Coelho <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    ouch, you thought that meant for you? :(

    sorry, terrible wording then.
    That sentence feels to me like the usual "boiler-plate" for an
    opensource program and why it can be good.

    I guess the idea was to sorta write the first info in a more
    formal, marketing-like speech.
    But didnt come that way to you and likely a few others.

    I can assure you it was not the intention.


    On 04/01/21 00:50, J. Liles wrote:
    My mistake. It says "spyware".

    On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 4:48 PM Filipe Coelho <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        Can you please clarify?

        The announcement is at
        
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/linux-audio-announce/2020-June/002820.html

        Where is it implied that non-session-manager is malware?

        I do realize your name was not in that announcement.
        This was not intentional.

        I am sorry for that, you absolutely and clearly deserve
        credit for NSM.


        On 04/01/21 00:29, J. Liles wrote:
        Indeed. In the LAA announcement post he implied that
        non-session-manager malware as well.

        On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 4:22 PM Marc Lavallée
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

            I did not know about New Session Manager, only a bit
            about Non.

            Now I'm reading this page:
            https://linuxaudio.github.io/new-session-manager/

            The description looks like Non is almost a proprietary
            software, and that New is trying to "fix that" as a
            "community version". Non is released as a GPL2 software,
            so clearly there was no need to fork it as a "community
            version". It there's a better reason (that could be
            mentioned)?

            GPL2 does not mean "free lunch"; there's other licenses
            for that.

            Marc


            Le 21-01-03 à 19 h 08, Filipe Coelho a écrit :
            On 03/01/21 23:57, rosea.grammostola wrote:
            ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
            On Monday, January 4, 2021 12:47 AM, Filipe Coelho
            <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:

            1. the new-session-manager fork was done by Nils, not
            me. I appreciated the effort and contributed some
            little things afterwards.

            The idea for a fork was yours Filipe. You're fully
            responsible for it, together with Nils. There is no
            point in denying or downplaying your role.

            Huh? Where did you get this from?

            I approved the idea of a fork, yes. Not sure if I was
            the first one to suggest it, I am pretty sure a bunch
            of people thought about it too.
            I did say that I would maintain the "old" GUI if
            needed, you can point the finger at me for that.

            But wait, just because I have an idea for something,
            how does it make me responsible for it?
            It would not have happened if others did not have
            interest on it.

            Stop making it all on me.
            Thanks


Reply via email to