On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Nick Quaranto wrote: > 1) EULA as soon as possible that respects authors' intentions and the > original licenses they were posted under. This isn't the first "you > posted something like my gem name" we've had, and won't be the last.
Totally agree. I've started a discussion for this and looped in a bunch of Ruby Central: http://help.rubygems.org/discussions/problems/411-rubygemsorg-toseula > 2) A solid policy and process for resolving squabbles over gem names > like this, be it voting or a general agreement among the maintainers > *IN PUBLIC*. Luckily, grosser seems to be quite agreeable with what > was proposed in that thread, it could have very easily not been that > way. Also agree. I'd really like to see an arbitration board as part of the TOS/EULA: See my comments in that discussion, based on suggestions raggi made a while ago. > If this project isn't interested in respecting the OSS licenses we > publish code under, I'm ready to step down. Let's work this out, for > my sanity and for everyone else's too. Slow your roll, player: Internet hyperbole is hyperbolic. This was ultimately a social issue, not a license issue, and I'm very glad it turned out the way it did. We'll get the currently ad-hoc nature of conflict resolution sorted as quickly as possible. ~ j. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
