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
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
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
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
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 I replied to your email about the port being out of
date the day after you sent it.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
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
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
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
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 I replied to your email about the port being out of
date the day after you sent it.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--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 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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-portsm=119522869306969w=2
Sounds like a fair solution.
Ciao,
Johan
pgpKKzw6X0dHN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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
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,
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
-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
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
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
