Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:22:50AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > The version of Ion3 in FreeBSD ports at [1,2] is obsolete (3rc-20070927 > is provided, but 3rc-20071109 is more than 28 days old), and must per > the license be upgraded, removed, or prominently marked as obsolete. I have marked it as DEPRECATED. Note: we've had a ports freeze and updates were not accepted during this time. The maintainer's activity or inactivity is thus not germane. I followed the discussion of your license on the pkgsrc mailing list, fwiw, and do not intend to rehash them here. To our users: if you are interested in seeing this software remain in the FreeBSD Ports Collection, please email me off-list. I have concerns about our ability to keep Mr. Valkonen happy with the way we distribute his code. pkgsrc has already made the decision that they are not able to do so, and have thus deleted it. Other BSDs and distributions may have done so as well. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have marked it as DEPRECATED. And this shows to a user trying to install it, how? > Note: we've had a ports freeze and updates were not accepted during this > time. The maintainer's activity or inactivity is thus not germane. The "maintainer" has not bothered even replying to a similar message I sent him earlier. (Well, if there's something good to be said, at least there was a clear contact address in the package this time. Something that distros tend to hide.) And if he really "maintains" the package, he should have marked is deprecated before the freeze. But distros don't maintain marginal packages, they just throw them in and expect the author to deal with the distro's users with the random snapshot that happened to be there at the megafreeze time. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:48:03AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > And this shows to a user trying to install it, how? ===> NOTICE: This port is deprecated; you may wish to reconsider installing it: is more than 28 days old, which the author states violates his license. Do not contact author. It is scheduled to be removed on or after 2008-01-12. This is normally as fast as we pull out the rug from under existing users' feet. If the above isn't satisfactory, I will immediately remove it from the Ports Collection. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ===> NOTICE: And this would also stop binary package from being generated for the releases? > This is normally as fast as we pull out the rug from under existing > users' feet. Umm.. how would it do that? -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:22:50AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > Since the so-called package "maintainer" seems to have gone AWOL > (as is typical): Have a look at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/x11-wm/ion-3/Makefile. There have been 8 updates of this piece of software in that time. You state "the version distributed online may not significantly differ from the original author's latest stable release (resp. latest release on the branch) within a reasonable delay (normally 28 days)." You don't say "Not more than 28 days", you suggest 28 days as a reasonable delay for you. Due to the ports freeze there have been no normal software updates for about month in the FreeBSD ports tree. That is a normal delay in the lifecycle of the FreeBSD software. Not everybody is agreeing on it, but it is considered a normal delay. To quote a friend: cvs rm -rf ; cvs commit -m "Your license sucks. Your code sucks. You suck. Happy Christmas." I hope that is not what you were after... Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Edwin Groothuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You don't say "Not more than 28 days", you suggest 28 days as a > reasonable delay for you. Frisbee/the package maintainer not bothering to communicating with me how long the actual delay might be, and would the package end up in a megafrozen state in the new releases, does not sound like a reasonable delay. But no, in the Distro Code of Conduct, it is forbidden to communicate with upstream, to reach an agreement etc. Distros want to do whatever they will, including fucking the author in the arse -- that's what the "freedom" in free software is about. It's not freedom for the author: it's freedom/power for the RIAA and MPAA and Sony and BMG and Warner of FOSS -- the distros. > To quote a friend: > > cvs rm -rf ; cvs commit -m "Your license sucks. Your > code sucks. You suck. Happy Christmas." > > I hope that is not what you were after... Whatever it takes for distros to either start behaving better (communicating with and taking consideration of authors), or simply perishing. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Gergely CZUCZY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't use Ion3, and I never intend to, but to be honest, this > licence of yours really seems to be very unreasonable. It's just > silly, nothing more. I could make it GPLv3 and nagware at the same time. Sistros would still have modify and consequently rename it to distribute something worth using. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Dec 12, 2007, at 00:47 , Tuomo Valkonen wrote: I could make it GPLv3 and nagware at the same time. Sistros would still have modify and consequently rename it to distribute something worth using. Let me use simple words here. ion-3. is. gone. nuked. squished. byebye. Now, I could spend a few sentences rambling on about how your license sucks, your code sucks and, quite frankly, your attitude to OSS sucks. But this is a public mailing list, with children watching. So I won't. Y'all have a Happy Christmas now, y'hear? -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of > the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO. I have fixed numerous bugs since 20070927 was released. What have you done? I bet there has been _zero_ "quality assurance" done by you (Frisbee) wrt. Ion3. No, you just throw it in, freeze it, and call that "quality assurance", and then expect the authors to deal with the users using the buggy releases that you distribute, and that the authors themselves have fixed ages ago in their real quality assurance -- the RC stage. The distros don't even bother checking whether the software is in "development snapshot" stage -- the still distribute megafrozen snapshots without prominently mentioning this. That's distro "quality assurance" for you. > your software will descend even further into complete irrelevance. That's quite appropriate, since FOSS has become completely irrelevant to me. Windows is simply the better OS nowadays. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
Folks, don't reply any further to this thread. The packages are in the process of being removed, no further software from this author will be accepted, no more drama will be had. Nothing to see here, move along. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:25:17AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ===> NOTICE: > > And this would also stop binary package from being generated > for the releases? No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some period of time to get final packages made and tested -- a time that no one can guarantee will necessarily be less than 28 days. >From the discussion I followed on the pkgsrc mailing list, you obviously either don't understand, or don't care, about this asepct of trying to produce the best working packages for the users of a particular OS. But, I tell you what, as a special favor to you, I'll personally rip ion-3 out of the already-prepared package sets, check to make sure that the port is removed from the Ports Collection, and promulgate a new policy that NO software from you will in the future be accepted into the Ports Collection. Thus, your licenses will be honored, and as an inevitable result, your software will descend even further into complete irrelevance. Will that be acceptable, or is there something else that you would like from me this fine evening? mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:34:00AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-12, Edwin Groothuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You don't say "Not more than 28 days", you suggest 28 days as a > > reasonable delay for you. > > Frisbee/the package maintainer not bothering to communicating with > me how long the actual delay might be, and would the package end > up in a megafrozen state in the new releases, does not sound like > a reasonable delay. But no, in the Distro Code of Conduct, it is > forbidden to communicate with upstream, to reach an agreement etc. > Distros want to do whatever they will, including fucking the author > in the arse -- that's what the "freedom" in free software is about. > It's not freedom for the author: it's freedom/power for the RIAA > and MPAA and Sony and BMG and Warner of FOSS -- the distros. > > > To quote a friend: > > > > cvs rm -rf ; cvs commit -m "Your license sucks. Your > > code sucks. You suck. Happy Christmas." > > > > I hope that is not what you were after... > > Whatever it takes for distros to either start behaving better > (communicating with and taking consideration of authors), or > simply perishing. I don't use Ion3, and I never intend to, but to be honest, this licence of yours really seems to be very unreasonable. It's just silly, nothing more. Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test. Geniuses solve problems that arise. pgp6fZT9E5dLg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First of all this is not a criticism of you but of the FreeBSD and FOSS community Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-12, Gergely CZUCZY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't use Ion3, and I never intend to, but to be honest, this >> licence of yours really seems to be very unreasonable. It's just >> silly, nothing more. > > I could make it GPLv3 and nagware at the same time. Sistros would > still have modify and consequently rename it to distribute something > worth using. Taking the project closed source and/or in some other way denying open access to the code is not your only option to protect your legit rights as a developer. There is a middle ground that my company and several other MicroISV's have developed over the last few years with one of them doing over a million in sales using the model.The basic idea is find an appropriate mix of restrictions on tech free loaders and the legitimate right of users to not be completely locked into your internal development model. Specifically you are allowed to charge for copies of your work, even modified ones, as long you pass certain rewards onto to contributors for more info see the following blogs I wrote on the subject (and they contain links to the rest of the community): http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/FOSS.php http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/SIW_Background.php http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/RCS.php -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHX6kCzIOMjAek4JIRAogeAJoCC9vLTZ9Pl/nm/hK5/zT+LgeBMgCeKq2t OZrj7+BdPvO6+lQ8ridv+5I= =OCsN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12 03:04 -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > (Free hint: they already have a windows manager built-in. Get it?) That's the only thing FOSS operating systems have going for them... and no thanks to FOSS herd. I bet that if the desktop herd were to redesign X, they'd take away the possibility for a separate WM. They are making life for alternative WMs harder all the time, after all. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:47:03AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > I could make it GPLv3 and nagware at the same time. Yes, and you could put on makeup, shave your armpits, put on a ballerina's dress, and declare yourself Queen of Saturn And All Its Moons for all it matters to FreeBSD now. We can make enough of our own drama here, thanks. Please take your own, and see what a wonderful reception it will get in the Windows world. (Free hint: they already have a windows manager built-in. Get it?) mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Aryeh M. Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taking the project closed source and/or in some other way denying open
> access to the code is not your only option to protect your legit
> rights as a developer.
I'm not denying access to the code (not yet anyway; I'll probably
move to license-free closed-source -- for windows -- in future
projects). I just want distros to behave a bit better: to call
things by their real names, and mark obsolete versions as obsolete.
The present variant of the terms of license are:
---
Copyright (c) Tuomo Valkonen 1999-2007.
Unless otherwise indicated in components taken from elsewhere, this software
is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 ("LGPL",
reproduced below), extended and modified with the following terms:
If the name Ion(tm) or other names that can be associated with the Ion
project are used to distribute this software, then:
- A version that does not significantly differ from one of the
copyright holder's releases, must be provided by default.
- Versions not based on the copyright holder's latest release (on
the corresponding "branch", such as Ion3(tm)), must within 28 days
of this release, be prominently marked as (potentially) obsolete
and unsupported.
- Significantly altered versions may be provided only if the user
explicitly requests for those modifications to be applied, and
is prominently notified that the software is no longer considered
the standard version, and is not supported by the copyright holder.
The version string displayed by the program must describe these
modifications and the "support void" status.
Versions for which the above conditions are not satisfied, must be
renamed so that they can not be associated with the Ion project, their
executables must be given names that do not conflict with the copyright
holder's version, and neither the copyright holder nor the Ion project
may be referred to for support.
In the text of sections 0-2, 4-12, and 14-16 of the LGPL, "this License"
is to be understood to refer to the LGPL extended with these terms and,
where applicable, possible similar terms related to the names of other
works forming a whole. Sections 3 and 13 of the LGPL are void. Where
contradictory, these additional terms are primary to the LGPL.
End of terms.
---
So, these terms only affect distros, not users. You're also free to use
the code; you just have to pay attention to how you call it when you
distribute it. But even modified versions can be distributed as "Ion"
provided that the user explicitly requests for those modifications
(typically in source-based package systems).
--
Tuomo
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:45:39AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > The present variant of the terms of license are: Have you considered the WTFPL alternative? http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12 01:55 -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > Have you considered the WTFPL alternative? http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ No, but I've considered simply having no license. No, not public domain, but "license-free" as djb distributes his stuff. Aka. the "Piratic License": "Do what the fuck you want as long as you don't piss me off." -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:08:46PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > "Do what the fuck you want as long as you don't piss me off." I personally consider this to be the null set. No one but you seems to be able to figure out what this is. It certainly doesn't seem to consist of "do whatever you want with this (theoretcially) GPLed software, but don't contact me" -- which, after all, would in and of itself be a reasonable position. (IMHO) Look, dude: we deleted your software -- all of it -- and two hours later you're still trying to find something to throw a fit about. It's gone, over, done, flushed, dead, buried, down the Sewey Hole, out with the used kitty litter, sent to /dev/null, pushing up the daisies, dwelling with Elvis on his UFO, gone Across The Ocean with Bilbo, on Amelia Earhart's last flight, in Judge Crater's suitcase, in Jimmy Hoffa's day-planner, gone to be with St. Francis, and singing in the Choir Invisible. The intersection of "ion-3" and "FreeBSD" is now congruent to the Vacuum Of Deep Space. Except with less free hydrogen atoms. So, please go away now. I am out of similes. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry but I really beg to differ with you. Vista sucks it long > and sucks it hard... There are some improvements in Vista UI-wise (within the suffocating confines of WIMPshit). But unfortunately it has also falling victim to the industry-wide trend of anti-aliasing fascism. XP was the last OS with good-looking fonts: in Vista you can't disable them completely (at least not easily), fontconfit/Xft are well-known to be AA/XML-fascist, it being practically impossible to configure to get decent fonts, especially if you don't have root access. OS X also AFAIK needs special hacky extensions to disable blurring and still afaik doesn't support hinting, so the fonts rasterise poorly. > There's a reason why I recommend Macs to new customers :). Macs are too much like Gnome. Between Mac/Gnome and Windows/KDE, I'll take the latter. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Dec 12, 2007, at 12:44 AM, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO. I have fixed numerous bugs since 20070927 was released. What have you done? I bet there has been _zero_ "quality assurance" done by you (Frisbee) wrt. Ion3. No, you just throw it in, freeze it, and call that "quality assurance", and then expect the authors to deal with the users using the buggy releases that you distribute, and that the authors themselves have fixed ages ago in their real quality assurance -- the RC stage. The distros don't even bother checking whether the software is in "development snapshot" stage -- the still distribute megafrozen snapshots without prominently mentioning this. That's distro "quality assurance" for you. your software will descend even further into complete irrelevance. That's quite appropriate, since FOSS has become completely irrelevant to me. Windows is simply the better OS nowadays. -- Tuomo I'm sorry but I really beg to differ with you. Vista sucks it long and sucks it hard... I install/personalize that OS on many PCs for Geek Squad, and I tell you it's really lame... The fact that one needs to install virus / spyware protection on any OS.. it's really, really sad. Microsoft is improving their development / use model, but it still ain't there (poetically). Some devs (in a different respect) are being egocentric and are making things shiny instead of usable. There's a reason why I recommend Macs to new customers :). -Garrett ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:08:46PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: >> "Do what the fuck you want as long as you don't piss me off." > > I personally consider this to be the null set. No one but you > seems to be able to figure out what this is. If I don't even know that you're even using my software, you can't individually piss me off. Big and powerful distros can, easily. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
Tuomo Valkonen ha scritto: No, but I've considered simply having no license. No, not public domain, but "license-free" as djb distributes his stuff. FYI, djb switched to public domain a few weeks ago :-) -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:36:23AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > Big and powerful distros can [piss me off], easily. Ah, that should let FreeBSD off the hook, then. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
In response to Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of > > the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some > > Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO. If we're taking a vote, I vote for the following: a) We ban Tuomo from our lists. b) We remove all his software from the ports and refuse to accept any more by him. The guy is obviously just around to start flame wars. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
Mark Linimon wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:25:17AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: >> On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ===> NOTICE: >> And this would also stop binary package from being generated >> for the releases? > > No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of > the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some > period of time to get final packages made and tested -- a time > that no one can guarantee will necessarily be less than 28 days. >>From the discussion I followed on the pkgsrc mailing list, you > obviously either don't understand, or don't care, about this > asepct of trying to produce the best working packages for the > users of a particular OS. > > But, I tell you what, as a special favor to you, I'll personally > rip ion-3 out of the already-prepared package sets, check to make > sure that the port is removed from the Ports Collection, and promulgate > a new policy that NO software from you will in the future be accepted > into the Ports Collection. Thus, your licenses will be honored, and > as an inevitable result, your software will descend even further into > complete irrelevance. > > Will that be acceptable, or is there something else that you would > like from me this fine evening? > Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible for perhaps possibly Tuomo here after I reported a crash under FreeBSD 7 on the ion list that wound up having something to do with the mod_xinerama extension -- something that I haven't had time to further look into. Tuomo, I wasn't running the version in ports CVS. I was running a modified local port that did pull the latest ion sources. I also had to explicitly enable mod_xinerama with a make define; so, it isn't part of the the binary package or a default port install. I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was necessary. :sigh: -- Russell A. Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
Russell Jackson wrote: > Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible for > perhaps possibly > Tuomo here after I reported a crash under FreeBSD 7 on the ion list that > wound up having > something to do with the mod_xinerama extension -- something that I haven't > had time to > further look into. > s/perhaps possibly/possibly luring/ -- Russell A. Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
Hi there, On 12/12/2007, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In response to Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 2007-12-12, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No, the release packages were already built. You see, part of > > > the problem of software Quality Assurance is that it takes some > > > > Distro Quality Assurance... ROTFLMAO. > > If we're taking a vote, I vote for the following: > > a) We ban Tuomo from our lists. > b) We remove all his software from the ports and refuse to accept >any more by him. > > The guy is obviously just around to start flame wars. > Up to now I was a happy user of ion3. So it makes me sad to see that ion3 is gone. I can understand why the author is frustated - sometimes behaviour of certain users doesn't make life easy. On the other hand these users are just the minority, while the bigger group is able of doing RTFM - including manuals and mailing archives. So there's even a third group of people that do all this, and wait for the port to be updated within a couple of days. Which up to now did work pretty well. Thanks, Mark! And by the way: It's not only a "FOSS problem", it doesn't matter how one distributes code in source or binary form. It's a general problem that can't be dealt with by changing some license. That being said I can understand why the port maintainer decided to remove the port - and I second his decission. Let me put it this way: ion3 is great. FreeBSD is great. The ports system is great. Building software from scratch sucks. This is why I'll remove ion3 from all my machines (including some Solaris boxes at work, but I don't bother with maintaining several configurations that are supposed to do the same). There are alternatives, after all. Thanks Mark for maintaining the port. And thanks Tuomo for enlightening the world with a new method of interacting with GUIs. I really apreciate your opinion on GUI design and window management, and I even agree with some of your opinions regarding FOSS. Bye Christian ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Russell Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible Don't worry, you're not responsible (much). I'd been monitoring the situation having heard of a ports freeze, and nothing having been done to mark the Ion package as (potentially) obsolete or anything. Not much asked, but it seems distros don't like to admit that they distribute obsolete and buggy software. > I wasn't running the version in ports CVS. I was running a modified local > port that did pull the latest ion sources. I also had to explicitly enable > mod_xinerama with a make define; so, it isn't part of the the binary > package or a default port install. The option doesn't seem Ion-specific and isn't documented to add unsupported features. A much better place for the module would in any case be, say, x11-wm/ion-3-extras/mod_shit-o-rama. You could also have mod_xrandr, mod_ionflux, and etc. under that kind of setup. There's no reason why the module should deceivingly (and inconveniently) be distributed hidden "within" the ion-3 package. > I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was > necessary. :sigh: Distro folks are not reasonable; they think authors should be their undemanding and unquestioning slaves. I think we have learned that already. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Russell Jackson wrote: > I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was > necessary. :sigh: An alternative is to simply keep the last released version that had a sane license. AFAIK OpenBSD did that, see: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=119522869306969&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=119523415116636&w=2 -- stefan http://stsp.name PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0 pgpbCpF8OIVX6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
In response to Russell Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Russell Jackson wrote: > > Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible for > > perhaps possibly > > Tuomo here after I reported a crash under FreeBSD 7 on the ion list that > > wound up having > > something to do with the mod_xinerama extension -- something that I haven't > > had time to > > further look into. The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers for all his problems with software and users. It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with his arbitrarily chosen "28 days" rule. If he's going to demand that his terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you were watching, why didn't you point this out back at the > beginning of the ports freeze? What makes you think I'd been watching that long? Don't you people read the licenses of the software you distribute? > Either you didn't understand Russell's comment ... or you haven't read the license. > Remind the voices that FreeBSD isn't a Linux distro, and maybe they'll > start feeding you accurate information instead of making you look insane. It's a distribution of various third party software. You may split hairs by insisting that "FreeBSD ports" is the distribution, but it is still a distribution. (There are no "Linux" distributions either: there are "GNU/Linux" distributions, if you get into hair-splitting.) -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with > his arbitrarily chosen "28 days" rule. There is no "28 days" rule. There is a "latest release in 28 days or prominently mark (potentially) obsolete" rule. You can make the marking permanent, always requiring users to acknowledge a message. You can make the marking automatic, by checking the website for a new release (as Debian presently does), or by some more sophisticated means or dead man triggers. You may not be able to distribute such binary packages with your present setup, but source should be enough. You may even simply have the package download and install http://iki.fi/tuomov/dl/ion-3-latest.tar.gz (signature in http://iki.fi/tuomov/dl/ion-3-latest.tar.gz.asc). Even if I made the number 280 days, distros would still complain. It's not about the days. The greatest difficulty to complying with the license are the idealist blockages in your head. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
In response to Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2007-12-12, Russell Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Damn it. I use this software, and I even feel somewhat responsible > > Don't worry, you're not responsible (much). I'd been monitoring the > situation having heard of a ports freeze, and nothing having been > done to mark the Ion package as (potentially) obsolete or anything. > Not much asked, but it seems distros don't like to admit that they > distribute obsolete and buggy software. Translation: Tuomo was just waiting around in the hopes that he could start bitching and cause trouble. He could have pre-emptivly offered his assistance to ensure that the FreeBSD ports tree didn't drift too far out of sync, but instead he just waited around until the opportune moment to start bitching and crying like a baby. If you were watching, why didn't you point this out back at the beginning of the ports freeze? > > I wasn't running the version in ports CVS. I was running a modified local > > port that did pull the latest ion sources. I also had to explicitly enable > > mod_xinerama with a make define; so, it isn't part of the the binary > > package or a default port install. > > The option doesn't seem Ion-specific and isn't documented to add > unsupported features. A much better place for the module would in > any case be, say, x11-wm/ion-3-extras/mod_shit-o-rama. You could > also have mod_xrandr, mod_ionflux, and etc. under that kind of > setup. There's no reason why the module should deceivingly (and > inconveniently) be distributed hidden "within" the ion-3 package. Either you didn't understand Russell's comment, or you're so bent on blaming folks problems on "distro folks" that you're redirecting the conversation in an attempt to prove your point, whatever it is. > > I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was > > necessary. :sigh: > > Distro folks are not reasonable; they think authors should be their > undemanding and unquestioning slaves. I think we have learned that > already. Who's we? You and all the voices in your head? Remind the voices that FreeBSD isn't a Linux distro, and maybe they'll start feeding you accurate information instead of making you look insane. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:59:34PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > Even if I made the number 280 days, distros would still complain. It's It's not so much that distributions complain, it's more the author of the software who has a set of misconnected wires in his head. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
In response to Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with > > his arbitrarily chosen "28 days" rule. > > There is no "28 days" rule. There is a "latest release in 28 days or > prominently mark (potentially) obsolete" rule. You can make the marking > permanent, always requiring users to acknowledge a message. You can > make the marking automatic, by checking the website for a new release > (as Debian presently does), or by some more sophisticated means or dead > man triggers. There you go. I had no idea it would be this easy. Please open a PR and attach a patch. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
Stefan Sperling wrote: > An alternative is to simply keep the last released version > that had a sane license. AFAIK OpenBSD did that, see: > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=119522869306969&w=2 Sounds like a fair solution. Ciao, Johan pgpKKzw6X0dHN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:01:27PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > I really don't see why the extreme action of removing it from ports was > > necessary. :sigh: > > An alternative is to simply keep the last released version > that had a sane license. Or simply use any of the freely available, cleanly licensed and more functional alternatives, many of which are written by programmers posessing an at least marginal semblance of sanity: - wmii - dwm - xmonad - larswm - awesome (my personal favorite) They all have their cranky peculiarities, but at least the authors aren't balls-out insane, and don't habitually harass OS distributors with their paranoid ravings. There's no reason to use ion anymore, much less let an old version rot in the ports tree. If people still want to for some reason, they can just keep a copy of the old port or build it from scratch. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
David E. Thiel wrote: > Or simply use any of the freely available, cleanly licensed and more > functional alternatives, many of which are written by programmers > posessing an at least marginal semblance of sanity: Sorry David, but I'm going to pick on this reply as an example of a more general case. It ought to be possible for us to discuss these issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Even if we may personally find someone's perspective unreasonable, the question for public discussion is _only_ whether the software author's license/perspective/demands are compatible with the FreeBSD ports system. If the answer is "no," then no harm, no foul, everyone moves on with their lives. Regardless of the outcome however it is a hard and fast requirement that we conduct ourselves as professionals, especially if we feel compelled to criticize another party for not doing so. I've written three original pieces of software for FreeBSD now, and even though I have complete control over the software itself, and the ports for the 2 in the ports tree, I still get a non-trivial number of what I will politely refer to as "wacky user questions." Therefore I have a certain amount of sympathy with Tuomo's position here. I think it's unfortunate that we could not reach an accommodation for this particular case, but I wish Tuomo the best of luck in his future endeavors. Doug PS, I do not in any way wish to discourage users from sending me questions about my stuff, although I find that not-infrequently my reply is, "You might want to give the man page another look ..." :) -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:59:34PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: >On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with >> his arbitrarily chosen "28 days" rule. > >There is no "28 days" rule. There is a "latest release in 28 days or >prominently mark (potentially) obsolete" rule. I'm not sure how me as an end user not bothering to update my installed package for several months differs from me as a package distributor failing to update a binary distribution to your latest release within 28 days, If your intent is to stop people potentially running superceded code then maybe _you_ need to take some responsibility for this. If you bother to look at the top of your Xorg log, you will find something like the following (older versions of XFree86 included explicit dates for validity). Maybe you should do something similar. X.Org X Server 1.4.0 Release Date: 5 September 2007 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0 Build Operating System: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA2 i386 Current Operating System: FreeBSD ... Build Date: 04 November 2007 09:16:33PM Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org to make sure that you have the latest version. > You can make the marking >permanent, always requiring users to acknowledge a message. You can >make the marking automatic, by checking the website for a new release >(as Debian presently does), or by some more sophisticated means or dead >man triggers. Feel free to submit patches. > You may not be able to distribute such binary packages >with your present setup, but source should be enough. In general, FreeBSD only distributes third-party packages in binary format. > You may even >simply have the package download and install > >http://iki.fi/tuomov/dl/ion-3-latest.tar.gz How will this work if the end user does not have web access or doesn't have the resources or desire to compile it? >(signature in http://iki.fi/tuomov/dl/ion-3-latest.tar.gz.asc). This signature was created using a self-signed key and is therefore useless as a mechanism to verify the associated package. There is no way to verify that the person who created that signature is the same person who wrote the e-mail I am responding to or that either are actually the author of the "official" version of Ion-3. >not about the days. The greatest difficulty to complying with the >license are the idealist blockages in your head. You are free to use whatever license you desire for software that you write. The harder your license is to comply with, the less likely it is that people will comply with it - either they will ignore the license or they will not use the software. The FreeBSD Project takes license issues seriously and, since you refused to assist the Project in complying with your license, the Project had no alternative but to remove your software. I'd suggest that you are the one with "the idealist blockages in your head." -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. pgpnYQVQUCKP0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-13, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure how me as an end user not bothering to update my > installed package for several months differs from me as a package > distributor failing to update a binary distribution to your latest > release within 28 days, As someone who's been using a particular version for some time, you are more likely to check for a new version before complaining. New consider a new _l_user that has just heard of Ion, installing it from a distro that doesn't keep up-to-date, and running into problems. Aside from lusers having no idea that the distro doesn't keep up-to-date, and distributes old broken development snapshots, running into problems is more likely after a new install than later on. That's what this is about. > In general, FreeBSD only distributes third-party packages in binary format. Umm.. the ports system is primarily source-based, and you distribute the sources. > How will this work if the end user does not have web access or doesn't > have the resources or desire to compile it? I did mention that this does not work for binary packages. > This signature was created using a self-signed key and is therefore > useless as a mechanism to verify the associated package. IRL-based PGP signing customs suck [1]. I don't even know anyone IRL that would have the slightest interest in using encryption. [1]: http://www.iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2006/06/25/T00_20_11/ > way to verify that the person who created that signature is the same > person who wrote the e-mail I am responding to or that either are > actually the author of the "official" version of Ion-3. That doesn't matter. What matters is that the _same_ key is used, after you've initially verified the package. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:27:47AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-13, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure how me as an end user not bothering to update my > > installed package for several months differs from me as a package > > distributor failing to update a binary distribution to your latest > > release within 28 days, > > As someone who's been using a particular version for some time, you are > more likely to check for a new version before complaining. New consider > a new _l_user that has just heard of Ion, installing it from a distro that > doesn't keep up-to-date, and running into problems. Aside from lusers > having no idea that the distro doesn't keep up-to-date, and distributes > old broken development snapshots, running into problems is more likely > after a new install than later on. That's what this is about. > > > In general, FreeBSD only distributes third-party packages in binary format. > > Umm.. the ports system is primarily source-based, and you distribute the > sources. False. We distribute the URLs to the sources. Usually the sources are retrieved from the author and its mirrors. Only a few versions are mirrored by the FreeBSD project. > > How will this work if the end user does not have web access or doesn't > > have the resources or desire to compile it? > > I did mention that this does not work for binary packages. > > > This signature was created using a self-signed key and is therefore > > useless as a mechanism to verify the associated package. > > IRL-based PGP signing customs suck [1]. I don't even know anyone IRL > that would have the slightest interest in using encryption. > > [1]: http://www.iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2006/06/25/T00_20_11/ > > > way to verify that the person who created that signature is the same > > person who wrote the e-mail I am responding to or that either are > > actually the author of the "official" version of Ion-3. > > That doesn't matter. What matters is that the _same_ key is used, > after you've initially verified the package. > > -- > Tuomo > > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test. Geniuses solve problems that arise. pgpgyqliYjE4y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-12 07:22:50 (+), Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since the so-called package "maintainer" seems to have gone AWOL > (as is typical): I have not gone awol. I replied to your email about the port being out of date the day after you sent it. Not reading my email for a day does not constitute "awol" in my book. As I wrote to you, I was perfectly happy to update the port to the new version, and add any warnings about the (non-default, not packaged) patch. Someone removed the port before I could commit the patch to update it though. I'm not going to start a long flamewar to recover the port, but unless portmgr objects, I would like to get it back. It is not particularly difficult to comply with the licence. It just takes a bit of time (which I'm happy to spend) to keep up with new releases. Of course, sometimes new releases will coincide with ports freezes. I'm happy to mark it RESTRICTED or whatever with a note that its being outdated is not allowed. Anyway. How does portmgr feel about this? Aye or nay? If "aye", I'll add it back and continue to maintain it, if "nay", so be it. - Philip -- Philip PaepsPlease don't Cc me, I am [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribed to the list. "These speakers do look like toilets." "That's why they're playing shit through them." -- Ramsay and Mafoo in the Lighthouse pgpgqAii74CDY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-13, Gergely CZUCZY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > False. We distribute the URLs to the sources. Usually the sources are > retrieved from the author and its mirrors. > Only a few versions are mirrored by the FreeBSD project. Including Ion. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:27:47AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-13, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In general, FreeBSD only distributes third-party packages in binary format. > > Umm.. the ports system is primarily source-based, and you distribute the > sources. ) This is primarily false, but there is a piece of truth to it. Let's talk about source-based installs first. When someone installs a port (cd /usr/ports/whatever && make), the tarball to the source of the application is downloaded via HTTP or FTP from whatever set of URLs are included in the Makefile as the source location. In the case that all the URLs return errors/time out/fail, there's a fallback mechanism that can be used (it's not necessarily used in every port, however!) where the source tarball is fetched from a "master" FreeBSD FTP server: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/distfiles/ or something along those lines. That FTP server can have a locally mirrored copy of the source tarball. Now, moving on to binary installs (what FreeBSD calls "packages"): Binary packages are pre-compiled binaries which are installed on the users' system -- there is no source downloaded. A lot of users prefer this method since they just have to do "pkg_add someport" and voila, the binary is on their system and away they go. Binary packages are downloaded (by default) from a "master" FreeBSD FTP server, unless overriden. The FTP path differs depending upon which FreeBSD version they're using; for RELENG_6, for example, it's this: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/Latest/ I believe Mark removed the source tarball from the "master" FreeBSD FTP server, and very likely removed the binary packages as well. Does this help you understand things a bit better? -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 02:48:07AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > I believe Mark removed the source tarball from the "master" FreeBSD FTP > server, and very likely removed the binary packages as well. Correct. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-13, Philip Paeps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have not gone awol. I replied to your email about the port being out of > date the day after you sent it. Closer to two days... > It is not particularly difficult to comply with the licence. It just takes > a bit of time (which I'm happy to spend) to keep up with new releases. Of > course, sometimes new releases will coincide with ports freezes. This time the thaw came quite in time (or did I cause it?-), and maybe the period could have been even a bit longer if people would communicate about such things. However, there's still the problem of binary packages ending up in the release snapshots without prominent notices of obsoleteness. I don't think RCs and development snapshots should end up there at all. That's the problem with distros' megafreezes: you can't sync the development of thousands of packages. And as for stable releases, even they should get bugfixes promptly. Maybe the 28 day limit can be relaxed in such cases a bit, but even half a year may be too long -- two years like with Debian is certainly too long. It depends on the bug at hand: segfaults should be fixed very promptly, whereas minor glitches are not that big deal. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-13, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this help you understand things a bit better? I know how the system works. I've even tried using FreeBSD on a couple of occasions -- and every time dependencies among the source packages have been broken, etc. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:42:53AM +0100, Philip Paeps wrote: > Anyway. How does portmgr feel about this? Aye or nay? I do not yet believe that it is possible to meet Tuomo's interpretation of his license without his prior review of every possible patch, and I'm not willing to obligate the FreeBSD project, in perpetuity, to be able to do so. I have no faith whatsoever that the criteria won't change underneath us, based on the conversations with the pkgsrc, OpenBSD, and other package folks (as archived on public lists). Without written assurance from Tuomo that it won't, I cannot in good faith allow this code back in. I highly doubt that that will happen. The only situation I _might_ find acceptable is for us to follow OpenBSD's path and reintegrate the last release of ion-3 that was GPL only, without the extra clauses. Otherwise, I believe we are simply risking too much. Even that, however, I think is extremely risky, given his track record. >From everything I've seen, the goalposts keep moving. I do not trust that they will not continue to do so. Therefore, I don't want to find out, in a court of law, which parts of this license are legally enforceable. It's simply not worth the trouble for one single package out of nearly 18,000. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-13 10:54:47 (+), Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-12-13, Philip Paeps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have not gone awol. I replied to your email about the port being out of > > date the day after you sent it. > > Closer to two days... Yes. > > It is not particularly difficult to comply with the licence. It just > > takes a bit of time (which I'm happy to spend) to keep up with new > > releases. Of course, sometimes new releases will coincide with ports > > freezes. > > This time the thaw came quite in time (or did I cause it?-), and maybe the > period could have been even a bit longer if people would communicate about > such things. I'm fairly sure you didn't cause the thaw. :-) > However, there's still the problem of binary packages ending up in the > release snapshots without prominent notices of obsoleteness. The FreeBSD ports tree is not "pegged" to releases as in other systems. So if a -release user downloads a ports tree, he gets the same tree as someone who is using -current. You do have a point that "obsolete" versions will end up on the snapshots of the ports tree on cds. We have a perfectly good mechanism for dealing with this, it's called NO_CDROM. I would be happy to add this to the Makefile. > I don't think RCs and development snapshots should end up there at all. I don't share your opinion about RCs. Regarding development snapshots, however, the port was named 'ion3-devel' until the first RC - indicating quite clearly that building it gave you software in development. The only reason I did the rename at RC-time was because I thought a release would happen 'real soon' after. It didn't. Note that I'm not complaining about your release schedule. I should have waited with the repocopy until after the release. My fault. > That's the problem with distros' megafreezes: you can't sync the development > of thousands of packages. And as for stable releases, even they should get > bugfixes promptly. Maybe the 28 day limit can be relaxed in such cases a > bit, but even half a year may be too long -- two years like with Debian is > certainly too long. I don't think there has ever been a FreeBSD ports freeze which lasted as long as six months, let alone two years. Generally a month or so is the order of magnitude. > It depends on the bug at hand: segfaults should be fixed very promptly, > whereas minor glitches are not that big deal. During ports freezes, approval from portmgr can be saught to fix things like segfaults. - Philip -- Philip PaepsPlease don't Cc me, I am [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribed to the list. BOFH Excuse #180: ether leak ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-13 05:02:36 (-0600), Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:42:53AM +0100, Philip Paeps wrote: > > Anyway. How does portmgr feel about this? Aye or nay? > > I do not yet believe that it is possible to meet Tuomo's interpretation > of his license without his prior review of every possible patch, and I'm > not willing to obligate the FreeBSD project, in perpetuity, to be able > to do so. Assuming you have your portmgr hat on, I'll take this as a very clear "nay" and I won't add the port again. It's fairly easy to maintain locally in $HOME/bin for those of us who still feel it's the only usable window manager. :-) Thanks for the clarification! - Philip -- Philip PaepsPlease don't Cc me, I am [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribed to the list. BOFH Excuse #234: Someone is broadcasting pygmy packets and the router doesn't know how to deal with them. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not yet believe that it is possible to meet Tuomo's interpretation > of his license without his prior review of every possible patch, If you don't trust your judgement on significant vs. insignificant changes, you can just have the user review them: """ - Significantly altered versions may be provided only if the user explicitly requests for those modifications to be applied, and is prominently notified that the software is no longer considered the standard version, and is not supported by the copyright holder. The version string displayed by the program must describe these modifications and the "support void" status. """ This specifically allows shit like the Xft patch that I will have nothing to do with (not until enabling clear crisp unblurred fonts is no more effort than 'echo crisp = yes > ~/.fonts.conf'), provided that users get an unmodified version unless they known what they're doing. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 license violation
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:01:50AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-13, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does this help you understand things a bit better? > > I know how the system works. I've even tried using FreeBSD on a couple > of occasions -- and every time dependencies among the source packages > have been broken, etc. Alright, I just wanted to make sure you knew how it worked, because what you'd stated didn't sound accurate. Also, what relevancy does dependency issues have to the issue we've been discussing? *sigh* -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
> The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers > for all his problems with software and users. Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, and all the other closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in perspective, for crying out loud... > It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with > his arbitrarily chosen "28 days" rule. If he's going to demand that his > terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. Actually, it can be done -- when building the port, the date on the distfile (or that on the most recent source-file /extracted/ therefrom) can be checked against the current date and a prominent message can be issued warning of possible obsoleteness (sp?)... I just wish we avoided the rash decisions like "let's remove everything written by the guy we don't like NOW" -- if only in the name of "ports slush"... In the hurry to spite the admittedly unpleasant-sounding author, the needs and expectations of the users were neglected. I've never used ion, but, judging from some responses here, it is an appreciated piece of software. -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers > > for all his problems with software and users. > > Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in > direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much > more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, and all the other > closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in perspective, for crying out > loud... What perspective? The port does not meet his license requirements. Nobody has submitted patches to make it meet said requirements. The project has to remove it. What perspective do I have to keep? Oh, you mean the part where he comes onto the FreeBSD lists and insults all the hard-working ports maintainers? Sure, I'll keep that in perspective. > > It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with > > his arbitrarily chosen "28 days" rule. If he's going to demand that his > > terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. > > Actually, it can be done -- when building the port, the date on the distfile > (or that on the most recent source-file /extracted/ therefrom) can be checked > against the current date and a prominent message can be issued warning of > possible obsoleteness (sp?)... Sure. As I already stated: please submit a patch. Without someone who actually cares enough to patch the port, it must be removed do to license problems. This is _no_ different than any other port with similar conflicts between licensing and available manpower to meet those licensing requirements. The _only_ difference is that Tuomo thought it necessary to come onto our lists and make a big stink about it, filling my inbox to overflowing. > I just wish we avoided the rash decisions like "let's remove everything > written by the guy we don't like NOW" -- if only in the name of "ports > slush"... In the hurry to spite the admittedly unpleasant-sounding author, > the needs and expectations of the users were neglected. Well, I said that because the guy irritates me. Let me be clear on this point. I maintain a few ports. I am _NOT_ in a position to dictate policy, I was only stating my opinion -- which _MUST_ not be construed to be the overall opinion of the FreeBSD community. There are far too many quality hackers out there who _do_ care about the community to tolerate one who seems to be in conflict with his community. > I've never used ion, but, judging from some responses here, it is an > appreciated piece of software. Fair enough. In that case, those who appreciate it should submit patches that meet Tuomo's requirements. This is how it's done. This is how it's _always_ been done. If the original maintainer is no longer keeping up with the software, then someone else needs to step up. It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen? -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-12, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are far too many quality hackers out there who _do_ care about the > community to tolerate one who seems to be in conflict with his community. Since when have I been part of some purported "community"? There's just me, a handful of other people with some traces of sanity, and a herd that keeps turning FOSS and *nix into a big pile of steaming shit. That's not a community. Maybe the herd feels they're one, but I'm not in it. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 11:42:31PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > Since when have I been part of some purported "community"? There's > just me, a handful of other people with some traces of sanity, and See, that's the problem! Only some traces of sanity left in there... I'll spell it out in little words with at most two parts: - You wanted ion-3 to be gone from the FreeBSD ports tree because it failed to comply with your idea of how it should be handled. - ion-3 is gone from the FreeBSD ports tree. You won! Now go back to your cave until the winter is over and you can get rid of your (three part word, be warned ->) hormones. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали: > It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes > out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen? I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN): FORBIDDEN= Violates licensing requirements of the author and: EXPIRATION_DATE=<> This would give those people, whom you expect to submit patches, some time to, actually, create them... Only if nothing materializes by the expiration date, should the port be deleted. -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mikhail Teterin wrote: > середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали: >> It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the >> port comes out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen? > > I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly > fashion. This includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN): > > No who ever did the removal just summarily removed it from the cvs repo. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYH3OzIOMjAek4JIRAr3GAJ9VJZGMB4M2ULfejOnuA6OEjsgD1ACgo3/t UIewehvvOOQrWmEQeHlLgc4= =bXLe -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > середа 12 грудень 2007 06:35 по, Bill Moran Ви написали: > > It's his software. If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes > > out of the tree. What else do you expect to happen? > > I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This > includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN): > > FORBIDDEN= Violates licensing requirements of the author > > and: > > EXPIRATION_DATE=<> > > This would give those people, whom you expect to submit patches, some time > to, > actually, create them... Only if nothing materializes by the expiration date, > should the port be deleted. It's absolutely a shame that couldn't be done, but he demanded that the port be fixed prior to release. Without a fix to hand, the only way to guarantee that FreeBSD wouldn't be in violation of the license agreement was to pull the port. Generate a patch and submit it. I'm sure the port will be reinstated as soon as somebody does so. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Mikhail Teterin said: > > The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame > > packagers for all his problems with software and users. > > Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't > engage in direct communications with forums such as ours. Their > licenses suck much more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, > and all the other closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in > perspective, for crying out loud... Lets not pick on Skype. While they may be closed source, they are very accommodating and interested in FreeBSD and FreeBSD users. They certainly don't put unreasonable demands on me as maintainer or the FreeBSD Project itself. I have direct access to their developers and they in fact rolled the new OSS version mostly for our benefit. There are no "28 day or rename it something else" provisions anywhere in their license. That to me is a completely unreasonable demand. Beech -- --- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://www.freebsd.org X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release: / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/6.2R/announce.html --- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:12:17PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html > > Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first. As well as http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html, which contains the history of the author's legal threat against ArchLinux. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:56:13PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 12 ?? 2007 06:35 , Bill Moran > > : > > > It's his software. ??If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes > > > out of the tree. ??What else do you expect to happen? > > > > I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This > > includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN): > > > > FORBIDDEN= Violates licensing requirements of the author > > > > and: > > > > EXPIRATION_DATE=<> > > > > This would give those people, whom you expect to submit patches, some time > > to, > > actually, create them... Only if nothing materializes by the expiration > > date, > > should the port be deleted. > > It's absolutely a shame that couldn't be done, but he demanded that the > port be fixed prior to release. Without a fix to hand, the only way to > guarantee that FreeBSD wouldn't be in violation of the license agreement > was to pull the port. > > Generate a patch and submit it. I'm sure the port will be reinstated as > soon as somebody does so. I am one of those users of Ion and after reading this thread I went and looked around at alternatives, only to find out that I still liked Ion the best. I was willing to submit patches to bring the port in line with Tuomo's wishes, until I read: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html My understanding of this thread is that if xinerama option is enabled the package name must be changed to indicate it is not an official release. Apparently changing the package name to be ion-OMG-YOU-ENABLED-XINERAMA-THIS-IS-NOT-A-SUPPORTED-PACKAGE is not acceptable by him. It is at this point that I decided his requests will not be able to be met within the ports framework and it's better left off dead. I'll be maintaining my own copy of the port for my personal use, but I don't see how the port can ever be revived given the statements he has made in the link given above. Let it die, please. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:30:46PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. Claims of license violations absolutely trump any "process requirements". portmgr has the explicit task of keeping the Ports Collection in as best a legal state as possible. Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the author if it was acceptable. It was clear from his reply that it was not -- especially considering the following history: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 23:01:57 Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers > > for all his problems with software and users. > > Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in > direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much > more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, and all the other > closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in perspective, for crying out > loud... > > > It's impossible for the FreeBSD ports system to guarantee compliance with > > his arbitrarily chosen "28 days" rule. If he's going to demand that his > > terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. > > Actually, it can be done -- when building the port, the date on the > distfile (or that on the most recent source-file /extracted/ therefrom) can > be checked against the current date and a prominent message can be issued > warning of possible obsoleteness (sp?)... > > I just wish we avoided the rash decisions like "let's remove everything > written by the guy we don't like NOW" -- if only in the name of "ports > slush"... In the hurry to spite the admittedly unpleasant-sounding author, > the needs and expectations of the users were neglected. Google a bit: ArchLinux (well, it was in the user-submitted "ports tree" that they have), Gentoo, Debian/ubuntu, NetBSD, OpenBSD. The latter had a pre license-change version and it was decided to stick with that. The others dumped it. The guy was never trying to find any compromise. He wants to go close sourced or something and "move to windows xp in a few years", on which apparently there's a need for his software. Also, it's worth noting that there seems to be no trademark at all, the author is under the impression that a trademark doesn't have to be applied for (of course that goes for copyright, not trademarks). This is from early in the ML thread over at Archlinux, dated april 2007. The guy's got a huge grudge or something, maybe even a serious mental problem (that is not meant as hyperbole -- look through some of the above "distros" ML archives). You can't do OSS and be a control freak at the same time. It just doesn't work like that. mlc has handled this exactly how he should have. With a swagger! I promise not to reply to this thread any more :) Dan > I've never used ion, but, judging from some responses here, it is an > appreciated piece of software. > > -mi > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
It was pulled from Debian, as well: http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/ion3/news/20070310T233909Z.html As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. When 4 different* OS groups come to the same conclusion, I think there's not much else to say. mcl * pkgsrc, ArchLinux, Debian, and now FreeBSD ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
- Original Message - From: "Mark Linimon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:12:17PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first. As well as http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html, which contains the history of the author's legal threat against ArchLinux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_%28window_manager%29#Controversy Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > an't do OSS and be a control freak at the same time. It just > doesn't work like that. mlc has handled this exactly how he should > have. With a swagger! Recent experiences have shown me that this is not necessarly true... usually the control freak side comes out in "that is a bad idea don't waste your time" type comments on purposals. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYKSRzIOMjAek4JIRAnmBAJ9I+DG+Lr1eDWRVhvk+0PcLN4gVegCfc3vE xfX4pGb87eopVNtM2SwNepc= =2Ojn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)]
середа 12 грудень 2007 09:49 по, Mark Linimon Ви написали: > Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the > author if it was acceptable. It was clear from his reply that it was > not -- especially considering the following history: > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2007/10/28/.html > > Anyone interested in this thread needs to go read that one first. From Tuomo's own words, it would appear, that Debian porters have found a solution, which he finds acceptable... Maybe, their "pissed-off threshold" is just greater, and they were able to get through his fireworks without losing the sight of /their users/, who continue to like the software, however frustrating the author's fits... -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the > author if it was acceptable. It was clear from his reply that it was > not -- especially considering the following history: It seemed acceptable wrt. the source package; I was querying the effect on binary packages. Also read again what I have written about the Xinerama module. Why is it not a separate package? What is it disguised as part of Ion, when it is not? -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:43:36AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the > > author if it was acceptable. It was clear from his reply that it was > > not -- especially considering the following history: > > It seemed acceptable wrt. the source package; I was querying the > effect on binary packages. It would have prevented binary packages. > Also read again what I have written about the Xinerama module. > Why is it not a separate package? What is it disguised as part > of Ion, when it is not? ion-3 is deleted -- both in source form, and in binary package form -- so the point is moot. Even without the Xinerama code, I don't see how we could have met your 'no modifications' clause and still have ion-3 be able to run on FreeBSD. In fact, I don't see how any packaging system can meet that standard. Perhaps you can tell me where I'm wrong here. My conclusions from your interactions with Debian + Gentoo + ArchLinux + pkgsrc + OpenBSD is that it is not possible for us to meet your objections in a timely fashion for this release. Apparently only Debian felt like they could meet your objections, even in absence of a deadline; the others either deleted it, or, in the case of OpenBSD, stayed with an older version that predates these licensing clauses. I haven't investigated the state of ion-3 with respect to any other major Linux distributions; the above seem to me to be a representative enough sample. Of course, I'm puzzled why the deletion of ion-3 wasn't enough to end this discussion. I myself have no further interest in discussing it. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-12, Danny Pansters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The guy was never trying to find any compromise. What compromise can be had, when the distros never try to be constructive? > Also, it's worth noting that there seems to be no trademark at all, the > author is under the impression that a trademark doesn't have to be applied > for Trademarks (tm) don't need to be registered (R). Under the Finnish law, registered and unregistered trademarks are almost equal; under other legislations not necessarily entirely so, but there's still some protection. > You can't do OSS and be a control freak at the same time. It just doesn't > work > like that. mlc has handled this exactly how he should have. With a swagger! As I have mentioned, the powerful distros expect authors to be their undemanding and unquestioning slaves. "They" were right: FOSS is comm^W collectivist. There's no room for authors, only a herd -- controlled by The Par^Wdistros. Authors are supposed to be content with having served the "common good" -- i.e. the distros' good. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even without the Xinerama code, I don't see how we could have met your > 'no modifications' clause and still have ion-3 be able to run on FreeBSD. > In fact, I don't see how any packaging system can meet that standard. > Perhaps you can tell me where I'm wrong here. RTFLicense (which few seem to have done, and still moan about it). It talks about "significant" changes. """ If the name Ion(tm) or other names that can be associated with the Ion project are used to distribute this software, then: - A version that does not significantly differ from one of the copyright holder's releases, must be provided by default. """ In the explanations section: """ Significant change: Bug fixes are a priori insignificant as additions. Basic changes that are needed to install or run the software on a target platform are a priori insignificant. Additionally, basic configuration changes to better integrate the software with the target platform, without obstructing the standard behaviour, are a priori insignificant. Everything else is significant. The copyright holder reserves the right to refine the definition of significant changes on a per-case basis. Please consult when in doubt. """ -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:30:06AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > The copyright holder reserves the right to refine the definition of > significant changes on a per-case basis. In other words, a moving target -- which implies, to me, that to be legally in the clear, that we would first have to vet every possible change or modification, including patches. This would merely add to _your_ email/support burden, which theoretically is what you are trying to minimize by your license terms. This seems circular to me. You may think the quoted text represent reasonable criteria. But in the case of implied threat of legal action, in my opinion, it's not worth anyone's time to try to iterate over every possibility to find out to make sure they -- and others, on their behalf -- aren't somehow liable. The risk is simply too high. There are other window managers that don't have this restriction, and thus no associated legal risk. I suggest people investigate those instead. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but two semester of US business and contract law taught me one thing: if there is any doubt as to whether something will create legal liability, it is absolutely incumbent on oneself to avoid it. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:30:06AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: >> The copyright holder reserves the right to refine the definition of >> significant changes on a per-case basis. > > In other words, a moving target -- which implies, to me, that to be > legally in the clear, that we would first have to vet every possible > change or modification, including patches. Notice the "a priori": it means you're allowed to do that without legal threat until further notice to the contrary. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:17:16AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > Notice the "a priori": it means you're allowed to do that without legal > threat until further notice to the contrary. Minutiae like this are the reason I pursued engineering, not law. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-12-12, Danny Pansters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The guy was never trying to find any compromise. > > What compromise can be had, when the distros never try to be > constructive? Given that as your perspective (which you are of course entitled to), and given that we've already removed the software from our ports tree, I think it's probably reasonable at this point to let this thread die. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:31:10PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: >Maybe, their "pissed-off threshold" is just greater, and they were able to get >through his fireworks without losing the sight of /their users/, who continue >to like the software, however frustrating the author's fits... It's not an "us" and "them" situation. FreeBSD ports are created and maintained by the people who use the ports. If someone wants to use the software, they are free to provide a port that will comply with the license. So far one person has stated that they tried and gave up. Maybe the next person will be more successful. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. pgpWdwWiuZin0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)]
On четвер 13 грудень 2007, Peter Jeremy wrote: = So far one person has stated that they tried and gave = up. Maybe the next person will be more successful. Absolutely right. My point, however, was that the rashed removal makes that hypothetical next person's job more difficult. No, not impossible -- getting stuff out from the Attic is doable. But more difficult (possibly involving contacting repo-meisters, etc.) -- we have the EXPIRATION_DATE setting for a reason. Any claims of license violations -- which, according to Mark, lead to the hasty removal -- should've been addressed by using FORBIDDEN/IGNORE instead. Not much can be done /now/ -- the reason I'm making these noises is to prevent another disorderly deorbiting of a port in the future. -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
In response to Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:30:06AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > >> The copyright holder reserves the right to refine the definition of > >> significant changes on a per-case basis. > > > > In other words, a moving target -- which implies, to me, that to be > > legally in the clear, that we would first have to vet every possible > > change or modification, including patches. > > Notice the "a priori": it means you're allowed to do that without legal > threat until further notice to the contrary. Did you not understand the part where Mark described the requirement to avoid possible legal trouble? Since you felt the need to snip out the part of Mark's post that was truly relevant to your reply, I'll reproduce it here: "But in the case of implied threat of legal action, in my opinion, it's not worth anyone's time to try to iterate over every possibility to find out to make sure they -- and others, on their behalf -- aren't somehow liable. The risk is simply too high." Stop abusing this mailing list for your own purposes. Let's state some facts: *) FreeBSD has agreed to remove the offending port in order to comply with your license requirements. However, you continue to complain. *) _Anyone_ could submit a patch to the port to abide by your license requirements and it's likely that it will be committed, yet _nobody_ has. Even you, Tuomo, claim to have bold and revolutionary ideas on package distribution yet would rather argue than WRITE A PATCH AND SUBMIT IT! Beyond that, you've _IGNORED_ posts that I've made in the past suggesting this. *) You blame "distro folks" as abusing developers and expecting them to just provide free work, then you turn around an complain that the FreeBSD people should bend over backwards to accommodate the software you wrote. You're doing the _exact_ thing you accuse others of doing. *) You continually abuse this mailing list by twisting other persons posts to your agenda by snipping relevant information, replying only to the parts that you want to, and redirecting the meaning of other posts. Please go somewhere that you can find emotional healing Tuomo. I, for one, will be glad to see you return as a sane person but have no desire to watch this thread continue as long as you're sick. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-13, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did you not understand the part where Mark described the requirement to > avoid possible legal trouble? Which part of my reply did you not understand? And at least where I come from, contracts are legally enforceable, even if they're only oral ones -- which would certainly include permissions given on a public mailing list. > *) FreeBSD has agreed to remove the offending port in order to comply >with your license requirements. However, you continue to complain. And you continue to spread misinformation, which I want to correct. > *) _Anyone_ could submit a patch to the port to abide by your license >requirements and it's likely that it will be committed, yet >_nobody_ has. Wrong; see a recent post by the portmgr. >Even you, Tuomo, claim to have bold and revolutionary >ideas on package distribution yet would rather argue than WRITE A >PATCH AND SUBMIT IT! Beyond that, you've _IGNORED_ posts that I've >made in the past suggesting this. I have other things to do than learn yet another packaging system. Those things include fixing things in Ion3, so that a stable release could eventually be made. > *) You blame "distro folks" as abusing developers and expecting them >to just provide free work, then you turn around an complain that >the FreeBSD people should bend over backwards to accommodate the >software you wrote. You're doing the _exact_ thing you accuse >others of doing. As others have stated, it's not difficult to comply with the license. But people are getting paranoid. > *) You continually abuse this mailing list by twisting other persons >posts to your agenda by snipping relevant information, replying >only to the parts that you want to, and redirecting the meaning of >other posts. Good to hear you're not alone. > Please go somewhere that you can find emotional healing Tuomo. I, for > one, will be glad to see you return as a sane person but have no desire > to watch this thread continue as long as you're sick. Healthy mind in a healthy body. The social body of the FOSS movement is sick. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)]
In response to Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On четвер 13 грудень 2007, Peter Jeremy wrote: > = So far one person has stated that they tried and gave > = up. Maybe the next person will be more successful. > > Absolutely right. My point, however, was that the rashed removal makes that > hypothetical next person's job more difficult. There was nothing rash about it. Any lawyer will tell you that under the threat of legal action, you remove the threat, _then_ look in to creative ways to fix the problem. There was not an immediate answer to hand. As a result, Mark did the right thing and protected the FreeBSD project from any potential legal action until a better solution can be found. > Any claims of license violations -- which, according to Mark, lead to the > hasty removal -- should've been addressed by using FORBIDDEN/IGNORE instead. Perhaps you're right. However, I'd like to hear the opinion of a lawyer as to whether this is acceptable or not. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 02:43:07PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > And at least where I come from, contracts are legally enforceable, > even if they're only oral ones You clearly don't come from the US, where oral contracts are not germane in business law. What's written down in the license is the only thing that would be germane in court. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this was my clear understanding from the courses I took. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
In response to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon): > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 02:43:07PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > > And at least where I come from, contracts are legally enforceable, > > even if they're only oral ones > > You clearly don't come from the US, where oral contracts are not > germane in business law. What's written down in the license is the > only thing that would be germane in court. > > Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this was my clear understanding from > the courses I took. As a side note ... when I owned part of a business we had to got to court with a few clients over gross misunderstandings. As a result, I had a lawyer tell me exactly what you said: That verbal agreements _are_ legally binding, but almost never enforceable. As a result, they're not really germane to business law. At one point, a judge took me aside an told me to start making my clients sign agreements before doing any work, otherwise I was going to end up in serious trouble at some point. It's the reason why, in the US, agreeing to anything over the phone is a bad idea. Ever have a pushy salesman on the phone try to get you to agree to something _right_away_! They reason they do that is it's pretty much impossible to make them liable for misrepresentation or anything like that if you don't have it in writing. They can basically lie through their teeth and promise you the world without delivering, and it's damn near impossible to take legal action against them if it was all verbal. Of course, I am not a lawyer either, so you should consult with one before entering into any important agreement. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
--On Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:17:16 + Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:30:06AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: The copyright holder reserves the right to refine the definition of significant changes on a per-case basis. In other words, a moving target -- which implies, to me, that to be legally in the clear, that we would first have to vet every possible change or modification, including patches. Notice the "a priori": it means you're allowed to do that without legal threat until further notice to the contrary. ^^^ Geez, IANAL, nor do I have a dog in this fight, but if *you* can't see that the underlined phrase places the object of the clause in constant and persistent legal jeopardy, then perhaps *you* need to hire a lawyer. Let me see if I can boil this down to simple English. The license is what is is, unless and until I say it's not. Therefore, you can use it, for now, but you need to pay close attention because I might change it at some point in the future and *then* you will be liable. Yeah, I'm going to sign up for that one. While watching this thread, I at first thought the decision to remove your software was a bit arbitrary. You have convinced me otherwise. -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-13, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had a lawyer tell me exactly what you said: That verbal agreements > _are_ legally binding, but almost never enforceable. That may be because typical verbal agreements are difficult to prove. However, a statement on, say, a public mailing list is more provable. Of course, there's the question whether the message was really written by the person the message claims to be from. This situation could be improved by the person in question having a habit of signing messages (or, say, the software releases themselves) with PGP. Of course, that's not 100% reliable, but neither are ink-on-paper signatures. -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)
On 2007-12-13, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The license is what is is, unless and until I say it's not. Therefore, you > can use it, for now, but you need to pay close attention because I might > change it at some point in the future and *then* you will be liable. Well, I suppose that part is a bit messy, and it might be better to leave that part more vague: up to what is (court considers) "significant" based on the other explanations. (That "a priori" stuff is not in the terms themselves, but in the explanations section. The terms only refer to "significant" changes. IANAL, but I think such explanations are less binding than the actual terms: they act to help interpret the terms.) -- Tuomo ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)]
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:23:24AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > No, not impossible -- getting stuff out from the Attic is doable. But more > difficult (possibly involving contacting repo-meisters, etc.) Wrong. You do cvs add, cvs com. > Any claims of license violations -- which, according to Mark, lead to the > hasty removal -- should've been addressed by using FORBIDDEN/IGNORE instead. At least in the US, a court of law won't accept "we'll be deleting the infringing software Pretty Soon." Once notified of the infringement, you are obliged to take immediate action. Keeping us legal is an explicit part of the portmgr charter. If you think otherwise, please contact core@ and they can explain it to you. I doubt you'll take my word for it. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
