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

[James]

On 6/7/07, Paul Mattal <paul at mattal.com> wrote:
> 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.

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