Gentlemen, could you please stop this and show some more respect in these discussions ?
Thanks, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ On 12.10.2014 21:26, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Alex Gaynor <[email protected]> wrote: >> Stefan Krah <stefankrah <at> freenet.de> writes: >> >>> >>> >>>> (for example right now bytereef.org is down, so >>>> we’d not discover any files there). >>> >>> Indeed. It was up reliably since 2005, down for maintenance on >>> September 23rd (before ShellShock ...). Then I discovered that >>> someone had put up m3-cdecimal on PyPI (presumably abusing PyPI >>> as their private repo --- there are several m3-* packages now). >>> >>> This triggered some reflection on whether I would make a significant >>> effort in the future to keep things running smoothly for an open source >>> community where authors are largely viewed as expendable. >> >> I don't know what it means for "authors to be largely viewed as expendable", >> but half the point of hosting things on PyPI is that you *don't* need to do >> any >> work at all as an author for reliable delivery of your package. >> >>> >>> Subsequently the downtime (again, the first one since 2005) was picked >>> up for propagandistic purposes on Twitter and Reddit. >> >> Ok, but you seem to be doing the other side's propaganda. Every single person >> I've spoken to agrees that this just underscores the need to encourage >> packages >> to be on PyPI. >> >>> >>> Last year I would have felt an obligation to minimize the downtime >>> to an hour at most. I no longer feel any such obligations and I'll >>> do it when I have time. >>> >> >> Ok. The PyPI administrators still feel an obligation to their users, so I'll >> prefer packages under their care. >> >>> Stefan Krah >>> >> >> Cheers, >> Alex > > Perhaps Stefan's referring to my tweets about the inability to reach > bytereef but those weren't propaganda tweets. Those were tweets born > out of utter frustration. Further, I'm rather shocked that you've > decided to allow the site to remain unreachable because someone did > what your license allowed them to do (redistribute the software while > retaining the required information: copyright, license, etc). If you > think that makes you expendable, you're half right. Users can > redistribute your software, that's the nature of the license you chose > to use. You're wrong because you, the author, are still very valuable > to those very users who may encounter a bug in the future. I don't see > how intentionally keeping your site unreachable does anything but hurt > your users (unless of course you want them to redistribute it > themselves or switch to Python 3.4). > > Does this mean that companies using devpi to keep an internal index > that also have copies of cdecimal are somehow violating your rights? > They're doing exactly what your license allows them to do. Or is it > just that some group has decided to redistribute it directly through > PyPI? I'm thoroughly confused here. > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
