The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
1–10 of 229 posts
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#2Linux distributions have often whitelabeled software that make trademark threats
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#3who should do packaging for each distro?
- upstream maintainer: too much work. each distro requires certain best practices/convention.
- distro: may not meet certain standard set by upstream maintainer.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#4Why would fedora have their own version of OBS studio when the package is already supported by the official team on flathub? Isn't this exactly the reason why flatpak was created, to avoid all the needless packaging that every distro had to do in order to install the program?
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#5Linux distributions have often whitelabeled software that make trademark threats
Seems perfectly reasonable and would achieve the desired goal of making it clear it's a third party package not "official" OBS.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#6Meh. Seems like there's some unstated background context here. The proximate cause isn't the linked bug at OBS, it's this bug report to Fedora: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463
Basically it demands that the FlatPak be removed from the repository citing "problems" that aren't detailed. Then 22 days later they start throwing bombs on their own gitlab (again, without details about what the problems with the FlatPak) and get those posted to HN?
Lots of steam, no meat. If this did go to a lawyer, the first question would be "Well, did you try to work with them?" Seemingly the answer is no. Or if it's "yes", it's somewhere back in the history of a pre-existing conflict.
This isn't the first conflict between an upstream and a distro about packaging process and it won't be the last. By definition the feature we users want from the distros is that they are making opinionated choices about how to present the world of software to us.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#7who should do packaging for each distro? - upstream maintainer: too much work. each distro requires certain best practices/convention. - distro: may not meet certain standard set by upstream maintainer.
I think the main issue in this case is that the maintainers provide an official flathub entry themselves. People using the fedora flatpak are not aware that they are using an unofficial (and incomplete) package, and then go to upstream with their issues.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#8who should do packaging for each distro? - upstream maintainer: too much work. each distro requires certain best practices/convention. - distro: may not meet certain standard set by upstream maintainer.
Simple answer: Whoever the upstream decides should do it. For my code I'm very happy to have distributions shipping packages because it means the code is available more easily for users and with less work from me -- but if a distro was shipping a broken package I would absolutely say "please stop doing that".
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#9Does anyone have more context for the name-calling and poor communication from the Fedora team? Seems like pretty poor behaviour from them if true
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#10who should do packaging for each distro? - upstream maintainer: too much work. each distro requires certain best practices/convention. - distro: may not meet certain standard set by upstream maintainer.
Well, in this case it seems like there already is an official Flatpak, but Fedora is overriding it with their own, which is of lower quality. The problem was already solved, unless Fedora is claiming that their Flatpak is better in some specific way.