[arch-dev-public] ion3 in extra: licensing issues

[Paul Mattal]

Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jeff Mickey wrote:
>> On 6/6/07, Tobias Kieslich <tobias at justdreams.de> 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.

- P