21–30 of 229 posts
Why 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?
who 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.
who 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".
Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? It feels like they'd have a hard time making that case, since package repositories are pretty clearly not representing themselves as the owners of, or sponsored by, the software they package.
> Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? Yup. The issue isn't the code but misrepresentation of the origin. It's like back in the day when Debian "forked" Firefox for reasons... Edit - worded it poorly - never meant to imply Debian did anything wrong, only that they changed the branding to respect Firefox's trademark and avoid the situation that OBS is threatening Fe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
It's free and open software we specifically give the right to modify and redistribute.
If the Blender Foundation one day decided that only the Windows and Mac App Stores can distribute Blender, yes, Linux distributions would be forced to use a different name.
Why 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?
Flatpak provides an alternative to the distro package but the distro package is still useful. The distro package provides tighter integration with the OS and provides stability guarantees that Flatpak does not. The distro version also allows an OS deployment with a single tool. They’re both useful.
Why 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?
Flatpak provides an alternative to the distro package but the distro package is still useful. The distro package provides tighter integration with the OS and provides stability guarantees that Flatpak does not. The distro version also allows an OS deployment with a single tool. They’re both useful.
Fedora has its own Flatpak repo as the default instead of Flathub (which has the official OBS package from the upstream developers).
Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? It feels like they'd have a hard time making that case, since package repositories are pretty clearly not representing themselves as the owners of, or sponsored by, the software they package.
> This is a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belonging to the OBS Project
Honestly it sounds very reasonable, if you want to fork it's fine, but don't have people report bugs upstream if you're introducing them.