You are not logged in.

#26 2008-02-14 17:06:02

codemac
Member
From: Cliche Tech Place
Registered: 2005-05-13
Posts: 794
Website

Re: Ion Removal

As the person who was the maintainer and the person who took it out of the repos, here are some points I'd like to make:

1) This happened because of how Tuomo wants his software to be distributed.  It is his right as a software creator to license his software however he wishes.  I do not agree with anyone who blindly bashes Tuomo.

2) ArchLinux developers are no longer officially supporting Ion.  I don't care if you add it back to the AUR.  I don't care if you create your own repo and people add that to their pacman.conf.

3) The definition of "free software" for archlinux is something that we as developers take as a license by license and software by software issue.  If we formally define the term, what do we gain?  All I see gained is endless discussion about whether a piece of software is free by the definition we came up with earlier instead of whether or not we think the software is free.  If you don't like that we include a piece of software, or that we've decided to not include a piece of software, let's take that up in a case by case way.  Coming up with definitions only increases confusion and increases arbitrary semantics instead of clarification.  There will be a lot of exceptions to any definition we come up with.

The developers and the community together will shape Archlinux's definition of "free software".

Disclaimer: These are my opinions!  I speak as a developer of ArchLinux, but this has not been discussed with other developers and I do not pretend that I speak with official finality.

Offline

#27 2008-02-14 17:57:48

eerok
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2005-03-20
Posts: 171

Re: Ion Removal

arnuld wrote:
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  tongue

Good counter-example tongue

All Tuomo has to do is own the market like Bill did, and he's good to go.

Though as I remember it, MS got more restrictive as it gained more control.  That's the ordinary sequence for world domination.


noobus in perpetuus

Offline

#28 2008-02-14 19:42:02

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Ion Removal

Holy crap this got way out of hand. Let's not read more into this than there is. Skype, while closed source, is freely DISTRIBUTABLE. Ion3 is not. So we can't DISTRIBUTE it.

Christ people, way to blow something out of proportion.

Offline

#29 2008-02-14 19:54:34

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Ion Removal

I want a pink bikeshed.

Skype isn't distributed by the arch linux developers either. Its distributed in [community]. So neither ion3 nor skype is distributed by the Arch developers. Why do we sell apples and not oranges? Oh but we don't sell either!

As far as I can tell according to the licensing presented here, any TU that wanted to could maintain ion3 in [community] provided he keeps it up to date according to those terms. Or arnaud or any other user can maintain it in AUR with all other such PKGBUILDs.

There is nothing lesft to discuss.

Dusty

Offline

#30 2008-02-14 19:59:44

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

Re: Ion Removal

After all, Archlinux doesnt provide all software in its official repositories. The developers decided to remove it, its gone end of story. Its not that popular today to stay in official repos anyway IMO, and anyone is free to upload it to the AUR if he thinks he can follow the license. Otherwise he must be ready for another "email war" with the developer of ion. Even if the license is not that much of an issue in general in the AUR im sure he is gonna find out.

Last edited by dolby (2008-02-14 20:00:34)


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

#31 2008-02-14 20:08:28

Misfit138
Misfit Emeritus
From: USA
Registered: 2006-11-27
Posts: 4,189

Re: Ion Removal

Holy runaway threads. tongue
All I did was go to lunch, and the dam broke! (Mexican Restaurant, BTW...you guessed it....)

Offline

#32 2008-02-14 21:06:57

peets
Member
From: Montreal
Registered: 2007-01-11
Posts: 936
Website

Re: Ion Removal

Oops! Sorry for aiming this thread the wrong way. I think I understand arnuld's concerns, and I think I understand Arch's current way of doing things. I think they're both good: as an individual, I'm concerned about my freedom and that of others and consequently about free software; however I think it's simpler for a distro to make available with little fuss anything that's "freely distributable" and that has sufficient demand.

I think the bikeshed is fine as it is smile

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB