Ion Removal

arnuld · 2008-02-13 11:03:25

I was searching Archlinux forum archives and other things and I came across this:

http://www.archlinux.org/news/374/

..... As such the developers of Archlinux have decided that this is non-free software and will not be provided in our official repositories.

looks like a kind of joke from Archlinux 2007 to me

peets · 2008-02-13 12:07:42

Have you read this?

dolby · 2008-02-13 13:33:46

To cut a long story short , the ONLY reason ion stayed in the Archlinux extra repository after this thread in the tur mailing list was that codemac who was the maintainer still used it and since the package complied to the ion developers demands about packaging his application , it stayed there until recently when codemac found out (better late than never) that there are many much better alternatives out there.

phrakture · 2008-02-13 17:22:20

arnuld wrote:

..... As such the developers of Archlinux have decided that this is non-free software and will not be provided in our official repositories.
looks like a kind of joke from Archlinux 2007 to me

This is true. Ion restricts redistribution and thus cannot be freely distributed by us.

CuleX · 2008-02-13 19:49:39

phrakture wrote:

arnuld wrote:
..... As such the developers of Archlinux have decided that this is non-free software and will not be provided in our official repositories.
looks like a kind of joke from Archlinux 2007 to me
This is true. Ion restricts redistribution and thus cannot be freely distributed by us.

How do you define "freely distributed"?

As far as i know, you can distribute it, but can't make changes to ion3 and call it ion3 again.

eerok · 2008-02-13 19:49:59

peets wrote:

Have you read this?

Wow. That was an entertaining read.

This reminds me of a really neat macro-generating OS I used in the '70's -- you basically built the OS up into your own environment using macro primitives. It was called ... oh geez, I forget what it was called. That's because the guy who wrote it had a ton of restrictions on its use and distribution. Consequently, it's been dead and buried for almost 30 years.

Cerebral · 2008-02-13 19:55:21

CuleX wrote:

How do you define "freely distributed"?
As far as i know, you can distribute it, but can't make changes to ion3 and call it ion3 again.

As I recall, he changed the license so that, if you have an outdated version of ion3, you cannot call it Ion3 anymore after... a couple weeks or something? So it's either update immediately or you're in violation of the license, which restricts our distribution of the app.

CuleX · 2008-02-13 19:59:38

Cerebral wrote:

CuleX wrote:
How do you define "freely distributed"?
As far as i know, you can distribute it, but can't make changes to ion3 and call it ion3 again.
As I recall, he changed the license so that, if you have an outdated version of ion3, you cannot call it Ion3 anymore after... a couple weeks or something? So it's either update immediately or you're in violation of the license, which restricts our distribution of the app.

Okay, that's crap and i can't understand this. Really not.

EDIT: Okay, i can. It looks like Ion3 makes fast development and in every release may be bugs, so he wants, that he don't have to give support for outdated versions.

Last edited by CuleX (2008-02-14 07:54:20)

dolby · 2008-02-13 20:32:00

The code of this project is "essentially" licensed under the LGPL, version
2.1, unless otherwise indicated in components taken from elsewhere. It is
reproduced below. Additionally, the following terms apply to the use of
the names Ion, Ion3, and other derived names:
Derived works and altered versions that significantly differ from the
original copyright holder's versions, must either a) be given names
that can not be associated with the "Ion" project, or b) be qualified
as "Ion soup", and still be considerable as customised versions of this
software. In both cases, executables must also be given names that do
not conflict with the original copyright holder's version, and the
copyright holder may not be referred to for support.
Modules and other (standalone) extensions to Ion must also be named
so that they can not be confused to be supported by the copyright
holder. If "Ion" occurs in the name, it must be in the form
"Foo for Ion" instead of "Ion Foo", etc.

If the name of the project (Ion), resp. names of particular branches
(Ion1, Ion2, Ion3, etc.), are used without further prominent version
qualifiers and notices of possible out-datedness to distribute this
software, then the following conditions must hold: a) The version
distributed online may not significantly differ from the copyright
holder's latest release marked stable, resp. latest release on a
branch, within a reasonable delay (normally 28 days) from the release.
b) The holders of physical distribution media are provided ways to
upgrade to the latest release within this same delay.
This name policy notice may not be altered, and must be included in
any altered versions and binary redistributions. It may only be
removed when using small portions of the code in unrelated projects.
The copyright holder and the Ion project retain the same rights to
your modifications that it would have under the LGPL or GPL without
these or similar additional terms.
Explanations:
Significant change: Bug fixes are a priori insignificant as additions.
Basic changes that are needed to install or run the software on a target
platform are a priori insignificant. Additionally, basic configuration
changes to better integrate the software with the target platform,
without obstructing the standard behaviour, are a priori insignificant.
The copyright holder, however, reserves the right to refine the
definition of significant changes on a per-case basis. Please consult
when in doubt.
Distributions: For example, suppose an aggregate distribution of software
provides a `installpkg` command for installing packages. Then the action
`installpkg ion3` (resp. `installpkg ion`) should always install the
latest release of Ion3 (resp. the latest stable release), online
connectivity provided. The action `installpkg ion-3ds-20070318` may
at any date install this particular mentioned release. Likewise
`installpkg ion-soup` may install any non-conflicting customised
version.

arnuld · 2008-02-14 05:39:08

peets wrote:

Have you read this?

I already read that before I posted my view and you miss the point.

arnuld · 2008-02-14 05:39:58

phrakture wrote:

This is true. Ion restricts redistribution and thus cannot be freely distributed by us.

you totally miss the point of my post.

arnuld · 2008-02-14 05:44:31

ok, to make things clear lets cut the sentence into 2:

..... As such the developers of Archlinux have decided that this is non-free software and will not be provided in our official repositories.

hence this becomes:

..... As such the developers of Archlinux have decided that this is non-free software .

and will not be provided in our official repositories.

It reasons that Ion3 is non-free hence not provided in Arch repos. By the same analogy, Skype is a Free Software and hence provided in Arch repos

So first task Arch community has to do is to define Free, preferably at ArchWiki .

z0phi3l · 2008-02-14 05:46:53

Then what IS your point?

The license is way too restrictive to be included in Arch

*edit* The sentence should not be broken up like you did, it is to be taken as a whole.

Last edited by z0phi3l (2008-02-14 05:48:31)

arnuld · 2008-02-14 05:49:39

eerok wrote:

This reminds me of a really neat macro-generating OS I used in the '70's -- you basically built the OS up into your own environment using macro primitives. It was called ... oh geez, I forget what it was called. That's because the guy who wrote it had a ton of restrictions on its use and distribution. Consequently, it's been dead and buried for almost 30 years.

This reminds of a dirty always-freezing, completely-unstable OS I used in 1990s -- you basically install the OS from a single CD. It was called ..... oh.. geez, I still remember the name "Windows 1995". That's because the guy who developed it had a tons of restrictions on its use and distribution. Consequently, it's been alive and being installed on every computer all around the world for almost 20 years

arnuld · 2008-02-14 05:53:03

z0phi3l wrote:

Then what IS your point?
The license is way too restrictive to be included in Arch

The point is very clear.

z0phi3l wrote:

*edit* The sentence should not be broken up like you did, it is to be taken as a whole.

the whole sentence reasons that Ion3 is non-free hence not provided in Arch repos. By the same analogy, Skype is a Free Software and hence provided in Arch repos.

point --> So first task Arch community has to do is to define Free, preferably at ArchWiki .

Last edited by arnuld (2008-02-14 05:53:21)

bender02 · 2008-02-14 06:13:23

ion3 is non-free as in "cannot be freely redistributed"?

wuischke · 2008-02-14 08:53:29

Have a look at arnuld's blog. (Interesting read, btw., although I don't agree with everything.)

You'll notice that he cares deeply about freedom and particularly freedom of software as defined by RMS. You see - e.g. Skype is non-free software as in proprietary and closed source, but it is still in our repos.

But he's doing the mistake of mixing two meanings of "free": We call ion3 non-free (as in freely distributable) and don't distribute it anymore. Skype is distributed, because it is freely distributable, although it is non-free software. Alright?

iphitus · 2008-02-14 12:11:29

The main concern with ion was the imposed requirement that it must be kept up to date. I guess we found it far too restrictive, and it imposed responsibilities upon us we did not want. We did keep it for a while, but found we could not guarantee compliance. In that case, it was easier to remove it.

Other non-free packages don't impose such draconian rules. While one or two may be pedantic about where files are placed, that's pretty easy to comply with.

We have no plans to separate packages into free/non-free repositories, and would prefer to implement it in pacman, allowing the user to specify what licences they will allow on their system. Not sure when that'll be available, maybe pacman 3.1?

cu3edweb · 2008-02-14 13:06:49

iphitus wrote:

The main concern with ion was the imposed requirement that it must be kept up to date. I guess we found it far too restrictive, and it imposed responsibilities upon us we did not want. We did keep it for a while, but found we could not guarantee compliance. In that case, it was easier to remove it.
Other non-free packages don't impose such draconian rules. While one or two may be pedantic about where files are placed, that's pretty easy to comply with.
We have no plans to separate packages into free/non-free repositories, and would prefer to implement it in pacman, allowing the user to specify what licences they will allow on their system. Not sure when that'll be available, maybe pacman 3.1?

I agree here with this. The developers work hard and can not guarantee that the newest version will be updated right away, which would then be in non compliance of the license. Plus I have to say the developer of ion3 was not at all pleasant about any of this to put it nice terms. I would have removed it for that reason alone. Just my two cents

Cerebral · 2008-02-14 13:27:37

arnuld wrote:

ok, to make things clear lets cut the sentence into 2:
..... As such the developers of Archlinux have decided that this is non-free software and will not be provided in our official repositories.
hence this becomes:
..... As such the developers of Archlinux have decided that this is non-free software .
and will not be provided in our official repositories.
It reasons that Ion3 is non-free hence not provided in Arch repos. By the same analogy, Skype is a Free Software and hence provided in Arch repos

You are reading the sentence incorrectly - there is no causality implied. Ambiguity is one of the failings of the English language.

We state two completely separate things we have decided about ion3 - it is not free software, and we are not providing it. From that sentence, you have taken out the 'and' and replaced it with a 'hence' in your own mind, which is not the meaning.

It's just like saying 'this apple is red and is delicious' - the fact it's red may or may not have anything to do with it being delicious, but simply SAYING 'the apple is red and is delicious' does not imply 'the apple is red, hence is delicious.'

freakcode · 2008-02-14 13:37:40

Let alone the fact that the ion package was on AUR, an unofficial, user-driven repository of PKGBUILDs (and not even the binaries itself) - and with all that, ion3 author failed to recognize it was unofficial, and kept threatening the devs, and talking off-topic sh*t about how he hates and curses Xft.

That's not about free or non-free, that's not about copyright. Talk about being non reasonable.

PJ · 2008-02-14 14:17:16

I still can't understand why the author of ion3 even bother to open source it.
Anyway, something I find rather interesting is that he didn't like others to use it in a different way compered to how he use it, this actually becomes funny when one realize that ion3 uses lua as a way to configure ion3. Makes totally sense to use a scripting language for the config files when you don't expect anyone but yourself to use it.

arnuld · 2008-02-14 16:45:03

Cerebral wrote:

We state two completely separate things we have decided about ion3 - it is not free software, and we are not providing it. From that sentence, you have taken out the 'and' and replaced it with a 'hence' in your own mind, which is not the meaning.

I did not replace anything in my mind. I was simply reading the sentence which simply states that "ion 3 is being remove because it is non-free" and that is why I said "Skype is Free Software ".

Cerebral wrote:

It's just like saying 'this apple is red and is delicious' - the fact it's red may or may not have anything to do with it being delicious, but simply SAYING 'the apple is red and is delicious' does not imply 'the apple is red, hence is delicious.'

I think wuischke explained this very well:

But he's doing the mistake of mixing two meanings of "free": We call ion3 non-free (as in freely distributable) and don't distribute it anymore. Skype is distributed, because it is freely distributable, although it is non-free software. Alright?

Now I got Arch's meaning of Free, it is about redistribution of binaries.

BTW, next time, no apple, only take example of Pineapple, one of my favorite fruits

jacko · 2008-02-14 16:59:19

Consequently, it's been alive and being installed on every computer all around the world for almost 20 years

Please define 'every', because my computer doesn't use that POS. Hasn't for the past 2 years.

Cerebral · 2008-02-14 17:01:34

arnuld wrote:

I did not replace anything in my mind. I was simply reading the sentence which simply states that "ion 3 is being remove because it is non-free" and that is why I said "Skype is Free Software ".

No, the sentence does NOT say that. Read the news again.

News wrote:

[...] However the license has proven to be burdensome. As such the developers of Archlinux have decided that this is non-free software and will not be provided in our official repositories.

The news post clearly says the following things:
1) The license is burdensome
2) BECAUSE the license is burdensome, we have decided this falls into a category of non-free software (see below, non-free as in restricted)
3) BECAUSE the license is burdensome, we have decided we will not provide Ion in our official repositories.

Nowhere do we say "because it's non-free, we've removed it". 'Free-ness' was not, and is not, a criterion for removing software from our repos. Burdensome licenses, however, are such a criterion.

arnuld wrote:

Now I got Arch's meaning of Free, it is about redistribution of binaries.

I'm pretty sure I can speak for Arch in general when I say this: we here at Archlinux understand the "free as in open-source", "free as in no-payment", and "free as in no restrictions" meanings of free. Arch does not create its own meanings for the term. Arch has no broad policy as to what we distribute based on 'free-ness' of the software - we do not look at applications and say "Hm, that's non-free, we can't include it."

You are misrepresenting to yourself our reasons for removing Ion, and this is where the confusion lies.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-02-13 11:03:25

Ion Removal

#2 2008-02-13 12:07:42

Re: Ion Removal

#3 2008-02-13 13:33:46

Re: Ion Removal

#4 2008-02-13 17:22:20

Re: Ion Removal

#5 2008-02-13 19:49:39

Re: Ion Removal

#6 2008-02-13 19:49:59

Re: Ion Removal

#7 2008-02-13 19:55:21

Re: Ion Removal

#8 2008-02-13 19:59:38

Re: Ion Removal

#9 2008-02-13 20:32:00

Re: Ion Removal

#10 2008-02-14 05:39:08

Re: Ion Removal

#11 2008-02-14 05:39:58

Re: Ion Removal

#12 2008-02-14 05:44:31

Re: Ion Removal

#13 2008-02-14 05:46:53

Re: Ion Removal

#14 2008-02-14 05:49:39

Re: Ion Removal

#15 2008-02-14 05:53:03

Re: Ion Removal

#16 2008-02-14 06:13:23

Re: Ion Removal

#17 2008-02-14 08:53:29

Re: Ion Removal

#18 2008-02-14 12:11:29

Re: Ion Removal

#19 2008-02-14 13:06:49

Re: Ion Removal

#20 2008-02-14 13:27:37

Re: Ion Removal

#21 2008-02-14 13:37:40

Re: Ion Removal

#22 2008-02-14 14:17:16

Re: Ion Removal

#23 2008-02-14 16:45:03

Re: Ion Removal

#24 2008-02-14 16:59:19

Re: Ion Removal

#25 2008-02-14 17:01:34

Re: Ion Removal

Board footer