301–310 of 363 posts
A very similar thing happened when the folks at flathub tried to package MultiMC. Unfortunately the author threatened to sue for trademark infringement and they backed down. https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/1978#issuecomment-74...
I'm really astonished with this comparison.
Looks like frenck plans to file issues against Fedora too: > I just did notice Fedora redistributing some of my packages because of your question, so will file a similar request with them. https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326#issuecomment-86...
Btw speaking of licenses, since frenck said he will be changing it by adding exceptions and making it non-free. Douglas Crockford said in one of the talks that one certain three letter company contacted him and wanted to use JSON format but weren't sure they could comply with "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." And he gave them that exception by stating: "I thereby allow ** to use JSON for Evil". My advise to Frenck is to adopt some similar proprietary license if he wants his work not be included in distros like Fedora and Debian. And grant exceptions to his fav projects like HA /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've mistaken my assertion. HA are perfectly entitled to continue including the package. The NixOS dev opening that thread was doing so with the intent of warning them about a potentially problematic upstream maintainer. There's an argument to be made that that dev was overstepping, but they weren't making any demands: their intent was informational. The community response was multiple HA admins expressing…
> The NixOS dev opening that thread was doing so with the intent of warning them about a potentially problematic upstream maintainer. The "potentially problematic upstream maintainer" being a Home assistant core developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so ... I know someone might, but really who will audit any of his existing code? (Sure, that's slightly different than identifying such an auto-update point and then trying to do a supply-chain attack. But do maintainers look at what they package? In how much detail?)
That's the point of packaging it... you review it at the time that you package it, and then you review it each time you update it in the future. Should always do a simple diff at minimum to see what changed. That's just part of being a responsible open source user.
Nobody does this, as this is completely unreasonable thing to expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is home-assistant packaged in any traditional distro like Debian or Fedora? I didn't think so. So long as everyone is supposed to just grab some docker container or OS image from the home-assistent people, the traditional distros that should back up NixOS here won't even be looped in.
There's literally a comment in there about Fedora having packaged it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like Home Assistant by default pulls the (EDIT: Home assistant specified, not latest) version of the package from PyPI at runtime and loads it dynamically. The point of NixOS is reproducible builds, that is if you build a given nix environment you will always get the same code. Dynamically pulling from PyPI at runtime defeats that. The author doesn't want any way of downloading the code other than getting "…
This sounds like NixOS is not ready to handle this scenario and they are bulldozing the issue to get it included.
What do you mean by that, why shouldn't they include it?
Seems like an author that doesn't understand the spirit of FOSS. The nixos team was clearly allowed to use it and include it when asking for some technical merits as to why, and even offering many alternative options to appease the author the author seemed to just childishly stamp their feet and say, "because I said so". Eventually the author took the position of "taking my ball and going home". Why is a person like…
Fast forward 3 years and a bug impacted a user's data in the portable package. The developer became increasingly irate even after it was fixed and demanded we stop publishing it. To avoid confusion, I even renamed the portable package to a new app name, forking it. That made him even more angry and he started publicly claiming we were "stealing" his work, despite following the license, maintaining his copyrights, and directing users to donate to his donation page to support development. He put up banners on his website and documentation pages about the "theft". As his emails to me went downhill, I got the feeling he might poison the code itself upstream to mess with the fork. I didn't want to deal with that just for one small app, so I abandoned it.
So, yes, this does happen. And some people thing "because I said so" is a valid position.
Seems like an author that doesn't understand the spirit of FOSS. The nixos team was clearly allowed to use it and include it when asking for some technical merits as to why, and even offering many alternative options to appease the author the author seemed to just childishly stamp their feet and say, "because I said so". Eventually the author took the position of "taking my ball and going home". Why is a person like…
It seems like the reason is (paraphrasing) "because I can't meet the resulting burden of support." which is something I haven't really seen anything in the open source world manage, though that might be because I'm not much of a contributor. What happens if a utility explodes in usage and the author can no longer effectively support it as a result of being buried in overhead? Are there any mechanisms for limiting how…
For distribution repacks specifically, there’s the old device of providing a configuration-time option to change the web and email addresses in the documentation (e.g. GCC does this), but I’m not sure if this will work when Google results for the error message will still point you to the upstream. There’s also the bug report checklist with “I have verified I am running the last development version”, but that comes with its own limitations.
Seems like an author that doesn't understand the spirit of FOSS. The nixos team was clearly allowed to use it and include it when asking for some technical merits as to why, and even offering many alternative options to appease the author the author seemed to just childishly stamp their feet and say, "because I said so". Eventually the author took the position of "taking my ball and going home". Why is a person like…
It seems like the reason is (paraphrasing) "because I can't meet the resulting burden of support." which is something I haven't really seen anything in the open source world manage, though that might be because I'm not much of a contributor. What happens if a utility explodes in usage and the author can no longer effectively support it as a result of being buried in overhead? Are there any mechanisms for limiting how…
Yeah, it's called setting realistic expectations. If I release something open source, I don't owe you anything. Support, help installing, fixing bugs, spending time implementing your specific feature...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what really confuses me! HA/frenk clearly are developing open source software, so they grant downstream users all the rights that go with that, including distribution rights. So far, so good, until folks actually leverage the rights frenk handed them and he shows up and says "Please respect my wishes and don't distribute my open source code." I can see how this is very confusing for a packaging team. It sound…
If they stop releasing it under an open source license then they lose access to all the free infrastructure that various companies and communities are providing.
There are also a lot of contributors who might have an opinion about closing the license: https://github.com/home-assistant/core/graphs/contributors