Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rob C <hyakuhei@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 12:31:27
Message-Id: f63a4d630705130528p544aaa01pe032bbd6eed22a65@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license by Jakub Moc
1 On 13/05/07, Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > Ulrich Mueller napsal(a):
4 > > Maybe the following are also interesting in this context:
5 > >
6 > > Debian:
7 > > <http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/renaming-of-ion3>
8 > > <http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69522>
9 > > Archlinux:
10 > > <http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html>
11 > >
12 > > I wonder if a package should be kept whose author is threatening with
13 > > "legal repercurssions" [sic].
14 > >
15 > > Ulrich
16 >
17 > Please, drop this thing from the tree. It has clearly no future in
18 > Gentoo anyway:
19 >
20 > http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004644.html
21 >
22 > <snip>
23 > > The only way to keep absolute control over the product as delivered to
24 > > the user is to change the license and distribute Ion3 as binary-only.
25 >
26 > I am going to do that. And, in fact, after final Ion3 is released, I'm
27 > not going to write a line of so-called "free software"; so poor has
28 > been the treatment of the FOSS herd (both of my code, and of the good
29 > old *nix), that I'm not going to do them any services any more.
30 > </snip>
31 >
32 > This post provides a very good reasoning so I'll just link it:
33 >
34 > http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004653.html
35 >
36 > P.S. And, please forget the 'but we only distribute ebuild, not the
37 > package' line. The guy is seriously paranoid, annoying and crazy. Next
38 > time he's apparently gonna claim that portage is a derivative work of
39 > Ion3.
40 >
41 > http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004663.html
42 > http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004659.html
43 >
44 > I'm not interested in his personal crusade against font handling on
45 > Linux, nor are most of users. No place for such frenzy in Gentoo - not
46 > worth the trouble, and noone should encourage such attitude, more
47 > importantly.
48 >
49 > <snip>
50 > FOSS shit has been on a constant downward slide ever since I started
51 > using it back in '95-'96, especially after all sorts of world domination
52 > plans, like Gnome, were announced. Windows, OTOH, has improved, although
53 > Vista has a small degradation again: you also can't easily disable the
54 > blurry fonts completely, just like Linux that requires writing loads
55 > of XML shit to do so. Maybe they've employed a few representative
56 > specimens of the FOSS herd -- a bunch of teenagers wanking to buzzwords,
57 > instead of pr0n. No wonder they can't tell a blurry font from a crisp
58 > one.
59 > </snip>
60 >
61 > Once again, I don't want to use any software produced by such abusive
62 > moron, and other people should do the same - or they should help them
63 > themselves and compile the only original, trademarked Ion3 (C)(TM)
64 > manually.
65 >
66 > *annoyed*
67 >
68 >
69 > --
70 > Best regards,
71 >
72 > Jakub Moc
73 > mailto:jakub@g.o
74 > GPG signature:
75 > http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
76 > Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA
77 > 3D9E
78 >
79 > ... still no signature ;)
80 >
81 >
82 >
83 As others have said, drop ion3 and related packages.
84
85 This sort of abuse from up stream should not be tolerated. We are at the
86 service of our users _not_ upstream.
87
88 Bending over backwards to meet the demands of an upstream author can almost
89 never be in the interest of the users. It takes up far too much time and in
90 the end if we were to comply with the demands of Tumo I have no doubt that
91 we would be supplying the users with a product which is inferior to the
92 "gentooified" version.
93
94 Meeting Tumo's demands isn't in the interest of our users. Where a conflict
95 like this exists the path of least confusion and disruption should be taken.
96 Drop the package and suggest to users missing it that they either go to it
97 direct, email Tumo or find an alternative WM, of the hundreds out there and
98 the scores within Gentoo, I'm sure the discerning user could find something
99 to suit there needs.
100
101 At the end of the day, this isn't "Gnome", "XFCE" or any other package we
102 serve out with a huge user base where adjusting to suit upstream may be the
103 better option. Its ion3. Tumo has gotten too big for his boots and its high
104 time Gentoo put its foot down.
105
106 Just my 0.02 chf
107
108 -Rob

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license "RĂ©mi Cardona" <remi@g.o>