why don't they just block the obs project and let users install it in unofficial manner while removing themselves as middleman? I mean, they have certain let's say guidelines but why go about enforcing them in this weird manner.
The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
91–100 of 229 posts
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#92Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#93more surprising is there's no way for them to delete it from the flatpak registry https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586#comment-955583
That's unsurprisingly consistent with the general quality level I've come to expect from the whole flatpak toolchain TBH.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't link to this guy's site. He has a serious personal problem with every reader of HN (including the vast majority he's never met and knows nothing about) and serves an NSFW image to anybody that has this site in the referrer request header.
[flagged]
Unexpectedly appropriate with the price of eggs these days
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#95Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#96who 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.
If distro maintainers are going to futz with packages, for good reasons or bad, then they need to bear the corresponding support burden themselves and ensure it does not fall on the upstream maintainers. This is not really any different from the Debian OpenSSL fiasco, or the Debian cdrecord fiasco, or the Debian xscreensaver fiasco, or...
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. 1. Just read the license. Never is a trademark granted. Source code can and is granted completely independently of trademarks (otherwise, as one example, how does Apple license iOS SDKs without permission to use the name “Apple”? It’s just a more stringent license than a FOSS one.) 2. It’s already happened, Debian wanted to change Firefox, Mozilla said no, lo and behold we had “Iceweasel” for a decade. ht…
I think you're misunderstanding trademarks. As an example: if I buy a 12 pack of Coke, I can set up a table and sell them one can at a time. Trademarks require that I don't present that I'm sponsored by Coke, or label my non-Coke as Coke, or a variety of other things that would confuse consumers. That's the entire premise of trademarks: avoiding consumer confusion. To your example: Debian had to rename their package…
I think it's easy enough, ignoring the technical details of why, to just look at the results: the version of the app in fedora's repos is inferior to that on flathub produced by the developers. Exactly why this is the case is irrelevant, what matters is that users are getting confused, thinking they are getting an official version of the product, and that this is causing damage to the developers who own the trademark (extra effort in dealing with bug reports, loss of reputation).
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#98This seems like a flashback to the xscreensaver fights with Debian of yore, given that the entire fight seems to distill to "OBS is shipping EOL Qt because of unfixed regressions in newer Qt, Fedora views shipping EOL Qt as unjustifiable neglect and repackaged it with newer Qt, which, as described, breaks things." [1] For those who don't have that in their context - jwz got very upset at people reporting bugs against…
Aforementioned image for those who are curious: https://cdn.jwz.org/images/2024/hn.png
[deleted]
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#99The package was already updated before this post was made: https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/obs-studio/history/co... which reads: ``` end-of-life: The Fedora Flatpak build of obs-studio may have limited functionality compared to other sources. Please do not report bugs to the OBS Studio project about this build. ```
Honestly, the flatpak should be made on only published by the project maintainers; I do not understand why someone still puts efforts into a Fedora-based flatpak to publish the application. Who understand better how the application works? I had this discussion with several packagers on the project, and they insist on their work. I do not understand why a Debian or Fedora packager would know better how to do this. It is a container/userspace abstraction, not distro specific. I understand there is a use case for Silverblue (and derivs), ... though this is duplication; an upstream exists with a possibility for extensions/plugins, that this doesn't.
It does not take away that this feels pretty unnecessarily hostile, as Neal already informed him to work with the packager to resolve this: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586. It is not clear if the reporter actually ever did.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#100This seems like a flashback to the xscreensaver fights with Debian of yore, given that the entire fight seems to distill to "OBS is shipping EOL Qt because of unfixed regressions in newer Qt, Fedora views shipping EOL Qt as unjustifiable neglect and repackaged it with newer Qt, which, as described, breaks things." [1] For those who don't have that in their context - jwz got very upset at people reporting bugs against…
I don't understand what the big deal was there. Debian has its own bug tracker for all of its packages so the distro maintainers get bothered about bugs in old packages shipped by the stable version of Debian rather than upstream developers. JWZ decided to voluntarily subscribe to the Debian bug tracker for his package and then add a nag screen and start a flame war over them shipping an old version.