Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:35:42 -0500 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mill@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation) Message-ID: <20071212183542.f9bf5e55.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <200712121701.57460.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> References: <20071212213200.D576216A469@hub.freebsd.org> <200712121701.57460.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin <mi+mill@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > > > The simple fact is that Tuomo has some strange desire to blame packagers > > for all his problems with software and users. >=20 > Yes, license-crafting lawyers are usually more polite and don't engage in= =20 > direct communications with forums such as ours. Their licenses suck much= =20 > more, however -- think Java, cdrtools, or Skype, and all the other=20 > closed-source packages. Put Tuomo's demands in perspective, for crying ou= t=20 > 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 wi= th > > his arbitrarily chosen "28 days" rule. =A0If he's going to demand that = his > > terms be followed, then it has to come out of the ports. >=20 > Actually, it can be done -- when building the port, the date on the distf= ile=20 > (or that on the most recent source-file /extracted/ therefrom) can be che= cked=20 > against the current date and a prominent message can be issued warning of= =20 > 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=20 > written by the guy we don't like NOW" -- if only in the name of "ports=20 > slush"... In the hurry to spite the admittedly unpleasant-sounding author= ,=20 > 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=20 > 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? --=20 Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071212183542.f9bf5e55.wmoran>