On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich wrote:

Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.

I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact. I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released. I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it. I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot. // jeff -- . : [ + carpe diem totus tuus + ] : .

Am Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:14:10 +0200 schrieb "Jan de Groot" :

So when you're out for a long while like you did a while ago, we're forced to update your packages, because it's illegal to leave it outdated. Multiple distributions don't ship ion3 due to this or ship the latest version under the old license. I don't think we should handle that different. Though the source is available, ion3 is non-free software, because it takes away the distributors freedom.

+1 for removal how should x86_64 handle that? codemac might have the ability to handle the license issues. we from the port cannot make sure to rebuild it quick enough all the time. also think off ppc? there's much more real open source software waiting to be maintained. just put this unfree crap into AUR and maintain it there. AndyRTR

You can always remove the package for x86_64. Just remove it from arch=() and don't ship the package for your architecture and you're fine. You don't have to port a package to both architectures ;) -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Andreas Radke Verzonden: donderdag 7 juni 2007 17:38 Aan: arch-dev-public@archlinux.org Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] ion3 in extra: licensing issues Am Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:14:10 +0200 schrieb "Jan de Groot" :

So when you're out for a long while like you did a while ago, we're forced to update your packages, because it's illegal to leave it outdated. Multiple distributions don't ship ion3 due to this or ship the latest version under the old license. I don't think we should handle that different. Though the source is available, ion3 is non-free software, because it takes away the distributors freedom.

+1 for removal how should x86_64 handle that? codemac might have the ability to handle the license issues. we from the port cannot make sure to rebuild it quick enough all the time. also think off ppc? there's much more real open source software waiting to be maintained. just put this unfree crap into AUR and maintain it there. AndyRTR _______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jeff Mickey wrote:

On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich wrote:

...

Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it.

I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact.

I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released.

I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it.

I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot.

The question is not whether we can distribute it. The question is "should we distribute it?". It's Tuomovs decision to take away freedom from distributions and thus end users. But it's our decision to obey and thus support unfree software. I vote for removal. Jürgen

On 6/7/07, Paul Mattal wrote:

Jürgen Hötzel wrote:

...

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jeff Mickey wrote:

...

On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich wrote:

...

Yupp, I think Jeff missed that discussion, while he was taking some time off. So yepp we should just remove it. I didn't miss the discussion, I checked up on it after the fact.

I published it with the correct license, and I'm on the ion list and the #ion channel on freenode. I usually know the day of if it has been released.

I've told tuomo to email me directly with complaints, so no one else should have to deal with it. I think it's a non-issue when we all ready were distributing the [extra] version of ion correctly. I don't see why you guys who don't maintain it want to delete it.

I'll handle the rebuilds, it's really ok. I like the software a lot.

The question is not whether we can distribute it. The question is "should we distribute it?". It's Tuomovs decision to take away freedom from distributions and thus end users. But it's our decision to obey and thus support unfree software.

I think we should leave the calculus up to codemac who will be bearing the burden of maintaining it. As long as he is interested in keeping it up to date, those goals align with Tuomo's. As soon as that is no longer true, we should drop it immediately.

Since codemac wishes to keep an up-to-date ion3 package anyway, I don't see why others shouldn't benefit from that. If and when it becomes a burden, then we should drop it.

I thought this would happen. codemac is a user of ion3, hence his reluctance to drop it. So long as codemac is using it, and maintaining it, that's ok. But if we get another run-in with tuomo, we ought to just drop it. James -- iphitus // Arch Developer // iphitus.loudas.com

have you forgotten to add force=y ?

Yea. After all that I didn't even get it to update on people's systems. ugh. Thanks for the heads up. I don't usually notice this because I update the package locally to check that everything is working fine. // codemac -- . : [ + carpe diem totus tuus + ] : .