[gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1060 bytes --]

Hi,
recently, there's been some worries about the changes and new
requirements the ion upstream, tuomov, put forth in a new LICENSE for
ion-3. It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which
requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
previous had within 28 days. Another point is the "no patches" clause,
which prohibits distributions from carrying a "significantly modified"
ion-3 release under the ion name.

As this changes are not properly reflected in any existing license in
our tree, i'd like to add the attached original license. I'm still
undecided about a name for it.
The new release candidate will be up in the tree once a new name is
decided.

For reference, all the flames, announcements and discussion are in this
links:
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-May/002013.html
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2007-April/001959.html
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html
-- 
Regards, Matti Bickel
Encrypted/Signed Email preferred

[-- Attachment #1.2: LICENSE --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 30222 bytes --]


Copyright (c) Tuomo Valkonen 1999-2007.

The code of this project is "essentially" licensed under the LGPL, version
2.1, unless otherwise indicated in components taken from elsewhere. It is
reproduced below. Additionally, the following terms apply to the use of 
the names Ion, Ion3, and other derived names:

    Derived works and altered versions that significantly differ from the
    original copyright holder's versions, must either a) be given names 
    that can not be associated with the "Ion" project, or b) be qualified
    as "Ion soup", and still be considerable as customised versions of this
    software. In both cases, executables must also be given names that do 
    not conflict with the original copyright holder's version, and the 
    copyright holder may not be referred to for support.

    Modules and other (standalone) extensions to Ion must also be named 
    so that they can not be confused to be supported by the copyright 
    holder. If "Ion" occurs in the name, it must be in the form
    "Foo for Ion" instead of "Ion Foo", etc.
    
    If the name of the project (Ion), resp. names of particular branches
    (Ion1, Ion2, Ion3, etc.), are used without further prominent version
    qualifiers and notices of possible out-datedness to distribute this
    software, then the following conditions must hold: a) The version
    distributed online may not significantly differ from the copyright
    holder's latest release marked stable, resp. latest release on a 
    branch, within a reasonable delay (normally 28 days) from the release.
    b) The holders of physical distribution media are provided ways to 
    upgrade to the latest release within this same delay.

    This name policy notice may not be altered, and must be included in
    any altered versions and binary redistributions. It may only be
    removed when using small portions of the code in unrelated projects. 

    The copyright holder and the Ion project retain the same rights to
    your modifications that it would have under the LGPL or GPL without
    these or similar additional terms.

Explanations:

Significant change: Bug fixes are a priori insignificant as additions. 
Basic changes that are needed to install or run the software on a target
platform are a priori insignificant. Additionally, basic configuration
changes to better integrate the software with the target platform, 
without obstructing the standard behaviour, are a priori insignificant.
The copyright holder, however, reserves the right to refine the 
definition of significant changes on a per-case basis. Please consult
when in doubt. 

Distributions: For example, suppose an aggregate distribution of software
provides a `installpkg` command for installing packages. Then the action
`installpkg ion3` (resp. `installpkg ion`)  should always install the 
latest release of Ion3 (resp. the latest stable release), online 
connectivity provided. The action `installpkg ion-3ds-20070318` may
at any date install this particular mentioned release. Likewise 
`installpkg ion-soup` may install any non-conflicting customised
version.

---


                  GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                       Version 2.1, February 1999

 Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
	51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL.  It also counts
 as the successor of the GNU Library Public License, version 2, hence
 the version number 2.1.]

                            Preamble

  The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public
Licenses are intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change
free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.

  This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some
specially designated software packages--typically libraries--of the
Free Software Foundation and other authors who decide to use it.  You
can use it too, but we suggest you first think carefully about whether
this license or the ordinary General Public License is the better
strategy to use in any particular case, based on the explanations
below.

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom of use,
not price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that
you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge
for this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get
it if you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of
it in new free programs; and that you are informed that you can do
these things.

  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these
rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for
you if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it.

  For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
you.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
code.  If you link other code with the library, you must provide
complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them
with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling
it.  And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

  We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the
library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal
permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.

  To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that
there is no warranty for the free library.  Also, if the library is
modified by someone else and passed on, the recipients should know
that what they have is not the original version, so that the original
author's reputation will not be affected by problems that might be
introduced by others.
\f
  Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of
any free program.  We wish to make sure that a company cannot
effectively restrict the users of a free program by obtaining a
restrictive license from a patent holder.  Therefore, we insist that
any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be
consistent with the full freedom of use specified in this license.

  Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the
ordinary GNU General Public License.  This license, the GNU Lesser
General Public License, applies to certain designated libraries, and
is quite different from the ordinary General Public License.  We use
this license for certain libraries in order to permit linking those
libraries into non-free programs.

  When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using
a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
combined work, a derivative of the original library.  The ordinary
General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
entire combination fits its criteria of freedom.  The Lesser General
Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with
the library.

  We call this license the "Lesser" General Public License because it
does Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General
Public License.  It also provides other free software developers Less
of an advantage over competing non-free programs.  These disadvantages
are the reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many
libraries.  However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain
special circumstances.

  For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to
encourage the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it
becomes a de-facto standard.  To achieve this, non-free programs must
be allowed to use the library.  A more frequent case is that a free
library does the same job as widely used non-free libraries.  In this
case, there is little to gain by limiting the free library to free
software only, so we use the Lesser General Public License.

  In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-free
programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of
free software.  For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in
non-free programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU
operating system, as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating
system.

  Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the
users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is
linked with the Library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run
that program using a modified version of the Library.

  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.  Pay close attention to the difference between a
"work based on the library" and a "work that uses the library".  The
former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must
be combined with the library in order to run.
\f
                  GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

  0. This License Agreement applies to any software library or other
program which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or
other authorized party saying it may be distributed under the terms of
this Lesser General Public License (also called "this License").
Each licensee is addressed as "you".

  A "library" means a collection of software functions and/or data
prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs
(which use some of those functions and data) to form executables.

  The "Library", below, refers to any such software library or work
which has been distributed under these terms.  A "work based on the
Library" means either the Library or any derivative work under
copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Library or a
portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated
straightforwardly into another language.  (Hereinafter, translation is
included without limitation in the term "modification".)

  "Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For a library, complete source code means
all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated
interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the library.

  Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
running a program using the Library is not restricted, and output from
such a program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based
on the Library (independent of the use of the Library in a tool for
writing it).  Whether that is true depends on what the Library does
and what the program that uses the Library does.

  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's
complete source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that
you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact
all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any
warranty; and distribute a copy of this License along with the
Library.

  You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
fee.
\f
  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) The modified work must itself be a software library.

    b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no
    charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

    d) If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a
    table of data to be supplied by an application program that uses
    the facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility
    is invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that,
    in the event an application does not supply such function or
    table, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of
    its purpose remains meaningful.

    (For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has
    a purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the
    application.  Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any
    application-supplied function or table used by this function must
    be optional: if the application does not supply it, the square
    root function must still compute square roots.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Library.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Library
with the Library (or with a work based on the Library) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

  3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.  To do
this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2,
instead of to this License.  (If a newer version than version 2 of the
ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify
that version instead if you wish.)  Do not make any other change in
these notices.
\f
  Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for
that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all
subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.

  This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of
the Library into a program that is not a library.

  4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or
derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form
under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany
it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which
must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
medium customarily used for software interchange.

  If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy
from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the
source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to
distribute the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

  5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library".  Such a
work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

  However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.

  When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file
that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a
derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.
Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be
linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library.  The
threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.

  If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object
file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative
work.  (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the
Library will still fall under Section 6.)

  Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the Library, you may
distribute the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6.
Any executables containing that work also fall under Section 6,
whether or not they are linked directly with the Library itself.
\f
  6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or
link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications.

  You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
this License.  You must supply a copy of this License.  If the work
during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
directing the user to the copy of this License.  Also, you must do one
of these things:

    a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
    machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
    changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
    Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
    with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that
    uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
    user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
    executable containing the modified Library.  (It is understood
    that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
    Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
    to use the modified definitions.)

    b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
    Library.  A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
    copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
    rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
    will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
    the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
    interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.

    c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least
    three years, to give the same user the materials specified in
    Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of
    performing this distribution.

    d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy
    from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above
    specified materials from the same place.

    e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these
    materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.

  For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it.  However, as a special exception,
the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is
normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
the executable.

  It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license
restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally
accompany the operating system.  Such a contradiction means you cannot
use both them and the Library together in an executable that you
distribute.
\f
  7. You may place library facilities that are a work based on the
Library side-by-side in a single library together with other library
facilities not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined
library, provided that the separate distribution of the work based on
the Library and of the other library facilities is otherwise
permitted, and provided that you do these two things:

    a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work
    based on the Library, uncombined with any other library
    facilities.  This must be distributed under the terms of the
    Sections above.

    b) Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact
    that part of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining
    where to find the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.

  8. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute
the Library except as expressly provided under this License.  Any
attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or
distribute the Library is void, and will automatically terminate your
rights under this License.  However, parties who have received copies,
or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses
terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

  9. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Library or its derivative works.  These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Library (or any work based on the
Library), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Library or works based on it.

  10. Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the
Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library
subject to these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with
this License.
\f
  11. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Library at all.  For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Library.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply, and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system which is
implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

  12. If the distribution and/or use of the Library is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Library under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those
countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

  13. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
versions of the Lesser General Public License from time to time.
Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version,
but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Library
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
"any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation.  If the Library does not specify a
license version number, you may choose any version ever published by
the Free Software Foundation.
\f
  14. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Library into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are incompatible with these,
write to the author to ask for permission.  For software which is
copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free
Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this.  Our
decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status
of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing
and reuse of software generally.

                            NO WARRANTY

  15. BECAUSE THE LIBRARY IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY FOR THE LIBRARY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR
OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE LIBRARY "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY
KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE
LIBRARY IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE LIBRARY PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME
THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

  16. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY
AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE LIBRARY AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE
LIBRARY (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING
RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A
FAILURE OF THE LIBRARY TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER SOFTWARE), EVEN IF
SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES.

                     END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
\f
           How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries

  If you develop a new library, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, we recommend making it free software that
everyone can redistribute and change.  You can do so by permitting
redistribution under these terms (or, alternatively, under the terms
of the ordinary General Public License).

  To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library.
It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most
effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should
have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full
notice is found.


    <one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>

    This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
    modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
    License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
    version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

    This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
    Lesser General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
    License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
    Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or
your school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the library,
if necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:

  Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the
  library `Frob' (a library for tweaking knobs) written by James
  Random Hacker.

  <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1990
  Ty Coon, President of Vice

That's all there is to it!



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 610 bytes --]

Matti Bickel wrote:
> It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which
> requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
> previous had within 28 days. Another point is the "no patches" clause,
> which prohibits distributions from carrying a "significantly modified"
> ion-3 release under the ion name.

So just rename the package to something that "clearly illustrates that
this isn't teh upstream Ion anymore!!!111one" and be done with that. If
users complain, ask them to talk to Tuomo Valkonen.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 646 bytes --]

Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Matti Bickel wrote:
>> It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which
>> requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
>> previous had within 28 days. Another point is the "no patches" clause,
>> which prohibits distributions from carrying a "significantly modified"
>> ion-3 release under the ion name.
> 
> So just rename the package to something that "clearly illustrates that
> this isn't teh upstream Ion anymore!!!111one" and be done with that. If
> users complain, ask them to talk to Tuomo Valkonen.

Perhaps "atom," an uncharged single ion. =)

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]

Jan Kundrát napsal(a):
> Matti Bickel wrote:
>> It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which
>> requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
>> previous had within 28 days. Another point is the "no patches" clause,
>> which prohibits distributions from carrying a "significantly modified"
>> ion-3 release under the ion name.
> 
> So just rename the package to something that "clearly illustrates that
> this isn't teh upstream Ion anymore!!!111one" and be done with that. If
> users complain, ask them to talk to Tuomo Valkonen.
> 
> Cheers,
> -jkt
> 

Well, one could ask why we should provide ebuild for stuff that has
apparently insane upstream, instead of just dropping such junk until the
upstream guy realizes that the world doesn't spin around him.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 00:41 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Well, one could ask why we should provide ebuild for stuff that has
> apparently insane upstream, instead of just dropping such junk until the
> upstream guy realizes that the world doesn't spin around him.

But if we did this, we'd have no cdrecord. ;)
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42) / FSF & EFF Member
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 655 bytes --]

Peter Gordon napsal(a):
> On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 00:41 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Well, one could ask why we should provide ebuild for stuff that has
>> apparently insane upstream, instead of just dropping such junk until the
>> upstream guy realizes that the world doesn't spin around him.
> 
> But if we did this, we'd have no cdrecord. ;)

That's why we have app-cdr/cdrkit now... :D


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 854 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:13:57 +0200
Matti Bickel <mabi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> recently, there's been some worries about the changes and new
> requirements the ion upstream, tuomov, put forth in a new LICENSE for
> ion-3. It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which
> requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as
> the previous had within 28 days. Another point is the "no patches"
> clause, which prohibits distributions from carrying a "significantly
> modified" ion-3 release under the ion name.

Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as
a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main
tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning
telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those
packages.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as
> a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main
> tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning
> telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those
> packages.

Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus
far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was
renamed to, et al.
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42) / FSF & EFF Member
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 753 bytes --]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:22:41 -0700
Peter Gordon <codergeek42@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus
> far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was
> renamed to, et al.

Presumably this would require maintaining updated documentation,
patches to change the program binary name and configuration paths
etc... In which case it should be done as an external fork, not a
Gentoo thing.

Really, I don't see why there's a need to go out of the way for this.
Upstream clearly don't want their package in the tree, and the
devmanual [1] says that that wish should be respected.

[1]: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/tree/index.html

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

Peter Gordon wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as
>> a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main
>> tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning
>> telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those
>> packages.
> 
> Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus
> far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was
> renamed to, et al.

As far as I can tell, we try not to be "upstream" as such; just to stick
closely to the package(s) upstream puts out until the situation becomes
untenable.

I agree with Ciaran; removing it is a good idea as long as upstream's
licensing scheme is retarded.

Just keeping it in the tree (under a new name) until it completely stops
working eventually doesn't sound like a better idea than removal.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1258 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as
> a technicality.

How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3 will
never go stable. That's the only thing i could envision to be a policy
violation.

> I suggest simply removing ion support from the main
> tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning
> telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those
> packages.

Care to expand on "no QA"? Tuomo fixed several QA warnings upstream (missing
strlen, etc. includes) when i told him (there will be patches on our side
until the next _rc).
Additionally i'd like to point out the bit where he says he don't want this
license to hinder distributions who just stick with upstream, which our policy
explicitly recommends. That's why i'm trying to reach a compromise on those
USE patches we apply. That's why the next build will tell ppl to bug me first.

In general: i don't think forking is an option. I won't be maintaining a fork
myself to begin with. If the general feeling is that ion is unacceptable in
the tree, i'll mask it pending removal.
-- 
Regards, Matti Bickel
Encrypted/Signed Email preferred

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1912 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 09:57:05 +0200
Matti Bickel <mabi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> > Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely
> > as a technicality.
> 
> How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3
> will never go stable. That's the only thing i could envision to be a
> policy violation.

Right, and packages that aren't aiming for stable eventually shouldn't
really be in the tree at all.

A larger issue, though... It requires some way of pushing updates to a
user who hasn't synced for >28 days.

> > I suggest simply removing ion support from the main
> > tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning
> > telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those
> > packages.
> 
> Care to expand on "no QA"? Tuomo fixed several QA warnings upstream
> (missing strlen, etc. includes) when i told him (there will be
> patches on our side until the next _rc).

If upstream release a new version that has a serious bug, Gentoo would
be required to include it as the most visible package within 28 days,
even if it is completely unusable.

> Additionally i'd like to point out the bit where he says he don't
> want this license to hinder distributions who just stick with
> upstream, which our policy explicitly recommends. That's why i'm
> trying to reach a compromise on those USE patches we apply. That's
> why the next build will tell ppl to bug me first.

If he doesn't want to hinder distributions, get him to fix his licence.
The way it is now makes it impossible for distributions to do their job.

> In general: i don't think forking is an option. I won't be
> maintaining a fork myself to begin with.

Probably true, from a Gentoo perspective. If there's a significant ion
userbase, someone else will do the work.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Wulf C. Krueger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 591 bytes --]

On Sunday, May 13, 2007 09:57:05 AM Matti Bickel wrote:
> If the general feeling is that ion is
> unacceptable in the tree, i'll mask it pending removal.

Having read the threads you referenced, I don't think there's much room 
for a compromise. 

In the conversation with you, Matti, he argues that elog is 
not "prominent" enough, users don't read USE flag descriptions, etc.
So those issues seem unresolved.

Reading the rest of those mail exchanges makes it even look worse.

I don't think he'll ever really be satisfied. So I'd suggest to drop ion3.

Best regards, Wulf

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2078 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> Matti Bickel <mabi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3
> > will never go stable. That's the only thing i could envision to be a
> > policy violation.
> 
> Right, and packages that aren't aiming for stable eventually shouldn't
> really be in the tree at all.

Point taken. Tbh, i don't think allowing ion to remain in ~arch would be
a big deal though.

> A larger issue, though... It requires some way of pushing updates to a
> user who hasn't synced for >28 days.

The license explicitly makes a exception for a user who hasn't updated
or is without net connection, demanding the new version to be shown at
next install/upgrade cycle after the sync.

> If upstream release a new version that has a serious bug, Gentoo would
> be required to include it as the most visible package within 28 days,
> even if it is completely unusable.

In that case, i will provide a patch or pull the package, if upstream
disagrees. However, if it's a critical fix (security), i trust upstream
to release a new version asap. On that note: the QA warnings have a
patch with gentoo and will be included in the next upstream release. I
intend to handle any other fix the same way, and upstream has not spoken
out against this.

> If he doesn't want to hinder distributions, get him to fix his licence.
> The way it is now makes it impossible for distributions to do their job.

We all agree it's retarded. However, i can't change the way it is.

> > In general: i don't think forking is an option. I won't be
> > maintaining a fork myself to begin with.
> 
> Probably true, from a Gentoo perspective. If there's a significant ion
> userbase, someone else will do the work.

There's already someone doing the work for gentoo. Look at bug
#136077, which is, tbh, one of my main motivators to work on that
package. I just feel that letting (contributing) users down would be
kind of a shame.
-- 
Regards, Matti Bickel
Encrypted/Signed Email preferred

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Ulrich Mueller]

Maybe the following are also interesting in this context:

Debian:
   <http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/renaming-of-ion3>
   <http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69522>
Archlinux:
   <http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html>

I wonder if a package should be kept whose author is threatening with
"legal repercurssions" [sic].

Ulrich
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

Wulf C. Krueger <philantrop@gentoo.org> wrote:
> In the conversation with you, Matti, he argues that elog is 
> not "prominent" enough, users don't read USE flag descriptions, etc.
> So those issues seem unresolved.

Well, this arguments are nothing new, just read this ml..
However, i don't think think his reasoning is justified here. We do
inform the user, everything else is not within our reach. And imho the
license doesn't require more.
If i get a cease and desist over *that*, well, screw it.
-- 
Regards, Matti Bickel
Encrypted/Signed Email preferred

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1031 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 10:34:42 +0200
Matti Bickel <mabi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If he doesn't want to hinder distributions, get him to fix his
> > licence. The way it is now makes it impossible for distributions to
> > do their job.
> 
> We all agree it's retarded. However, i can't change the way it is.

Well, you can drop support from the tree... I suspect upstream might
change their tune if distributions stick their collective feet down.

> > > In general: i don't think forking is an option. I won't be
> > > maintaining a fork myself to begin with.
> > 
> > Probably true, from a Gentoo perspective. If there's a significant
> > ion userbase, someone else will do the work.
> 
> There's already someone doing the work for gentoo. Look at bug
> #136077, which is, tbh, one of my main motivators to work on that
> package. I just feel that letting (contributing) users down would be
> kind of a shame.

Move it to an overlay. People have far lower expectations from
overlays...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2847 bytes --]

Ulrich Mueller napsal(a):
> Maybe the following are also interesting in this context:
> 
> Debian:
>    <http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/renaming-of-ion3>
>    <http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69522>
> Archlinux:
>    <http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html>
> 
> I wonder if a package should be kept whose author is threatening with
> "legal repercurssions" [sic].
> 
> Ulrich

Please, drop this thing from the tree. It has clearly no future in
Gentoo anyway:

http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004644.html

<snip>
> The only way to keep absolute control over the product as delivered to
> the user is to change the license and distribute Ion3 as binary-only.

I am going to do that. And, in fact, after final Ion3 is released, I'm
not going to write a line of so-called "free software"; so poor has
been the treatment of the FOSS herd (both of my code, and of the good
old *nix), that I'm not going to do them any services any more.
</snip>

This post provides a very good reasoning so I'll just link it:

http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004653.html

P.S. And, please forget the 'but we only distribute ebuild, not the
package' line. The guy is seriously paranoid, annoying and crazy. Next
time he's apparently gonna claim that portage is a derivative work of Ion3.

http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004663.html
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004659.html

I'm not interested in his personal crusade against font handling on
Linux, nor are most of users. No place for such frenzy in Gentoo - not
worth the trouble, and noone should encourage such attitude, more
importantly.

<snip>
FOSS shit has been on a constant downward slide ever since I started
using it back in '95-'96, especially after all sorts of world domination
plans, like Gnome, were announced. Windows, OTOH, has improved, although
Vista has a small degradation again: you also can't easily disable the
blurry fonts completely, just like Linux that requires writing loads
of XML shit to do so. Maybe they've employed a few representative
specimens of the FOSS herd -- a bunch of teenagers wanking to buzzwords,
instead of pr0n. No wonder they can't tell a blurry font from a crisp
one.
</snip>

Once again, I don't want to use any software produced by such abusive
moron, and other people should do the same - or they should help them
themselves and compile the only original, trademarked Ion3 (C)(TM) manually.

*annoyed*


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Rob C]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4128 bytes --]

On 13/05/07, Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Ulrich Mueller napsal(a):
> > Maybe the following are also interesting in this context:
> >
> > Debian:
> >    <http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/renaming-of-ion3>
> >    <http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69522>
> > Archlinux:
> >    <http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html>
> >
> > I wonder if a package should be kept whose author is threatening with
> > "legal repercurssions" [sic].
> >
> > Ulrich
>
> Please, drop this thing from the tree. It has clearly no future in
> Gentoo anyway:
>
> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004644.html
>
> <snip>
> > The only way to keep absolute control over the product as delivered to
> > the user is to change the license and distribute Ion3 as binary-only.
>
> I am going to do that. And, in fact, after final Ion3 is released, I'm
> not going to write a line of so-called "free software"; so poor has
> been the treatment of the FOSS herd (both of my code, and of the good
> old *nix), that I'm not going to do them any services any more.
> </snip>
>
> This post provides a very good reasoning so I'll just link it:
>
> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004653.html
>
> P.S. And, please forget the 'but we only distribute ebuild, not the
> package' line. The guy is seriously paranoid, annoying and crazy. Next
> time he's apparently gonna claim that portage is a derivative work of
> Ion3.
>
> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004663.html
> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004659.html
>
> I'm not interested in his personal crusade against font handling on
> Linux, nor are most of users. No place for such frenzy in Gentoo - not
> worth the trouble, and noone should encourage such attitude, more
> importantly.
>
> <snip>
> FOSS shit has been on a constant downward slide ever since I started
> using it back in '95-'96, especially after all sorts of world domination
> plans, like Gnome, were announced. Windows, OTOH, has improved, although
> Vista has a small degradation again: you also can't easily disable the
> blurry fonts completely, just like Linux that requires writing loads
> of XML shit to do so. Maybe they've employed a few representative
> specimens of the FOSS herd -- a bunch of teenagers wanking to buzzwords,
> instead of pr0n. No wonder they can't tell a blurry font from a crisp
> one.
> </snip>
>
> Once again, I don't want to use any software produced by such abusive
> moron, and other people should do the same - or they should help them
> themselves and compile the only original, trademarked Ion3 (C)(TM)
> manually.
>
> *annoyed*
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Jakub Moc
> mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
> GPG signature:
> http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
> Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA
> 3D9E
>
> ... still no signature   ;)
>
>
>
As others have said, drop ion3 and related packages.

This sort of abuse from up stream should not be tolerated. We are at the
service of our users _not_ upstream.

Bending over backwards to meet the demands of an upstream author can almost
never be in the interest of the users. It takes up far too much time and in
the end if we were to comply with the demands of Tumo I have no doubt that
we would be supplying the users with a product which is inferior to the
"gentooified" version.

Meeting Tumo's demands isn't in the interest of our users. Where a conflict
like this exists the path of least confusion and disruption should be taken.
Drop the package and suggest to users missing it that they either go to it
direct, email Tumo or find an alternative WM, of the hundreds out there and
the scores  within Gentoo, I'm sure the discerning user could find something
to suit there needs.

At the end of the day, this isn't "Gnome", "XFCE" or any other package we
serve out with a huge user base where adjusting to suit upstream may be the
better option. Its ion3. Tumo has gotten too big for his boots and its high
time Gentoo put its foot down.

Just my 0.02 chf

-Rob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5489 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Rémi Cardona]

Rob C a écrit :
> Just my 0.02 chf

+0.02eur from me too.

This is going waaay beyond the FireFox/IceWeasle trademark issue. Even 
closed source apps are less painful license-wise.

I'd advise all ion3 users from Gentoo (and maybe other distros) to get 
together and fork it (à la dhcpcd), doing everyone a favor.

Rémi
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 801 bytes --]

On Saturday 12 May 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > Matti Bickel wrote:
> >> It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which
> >> requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
> >> previous had within 28 days. Another point is the "no patches" clause,
> >> which prohibits distributions from carrying a "significantly modified"
> >> ion-3 release under the ion name.
> >
> > So just rename the package to something that "clearly illustrates that
> > this isn't teh upstream Ion anymore!!!111one" and be done with that. If
> > users complain, ask them to talk to Tuomo Valkonen.
>
> Perhaps "atom," an uncharged single ion. =)

the words "uncharged ion" dont belong together as an ion by definition carries 
a charge :p
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 664 bytes --]

On Saturday 12 May 2007, Matti Bickel wrote:
> recently, there's been some worries about the changes and new
> requirements the ion upstream, tuomov, put forth in a new LICENSE for
> ion-3. It's main additions are a "timely response clause", which
> requires us to get the same keywords for a newly released version as the
> previous had within 28 days. Another point is the "no patches" clause,
> which prohibits distributions from carrying a "significantly modified"
> ion-3 release under the ion name.

i'd just rename the package to whatever Debian uses

or punt it completely with a masking reason:
# upstream is braindead, ask them to get a transplant
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: ion license

[Steve Long]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Perhaps "atom," an uncharged single ion. =)
> the words "uncharged ion" dont belong together as an ion by definition
> carries a charge :p

Heh how about "FreeRadical" then; don't they carry a charge?

Other than tho, the guy is a complete jerk; as Arch said on the list they
don't want any of his software ever again, irrespective of license, since
he clearly doesn't understand the spirit of Free Software, and has caused
so much upset with one thread. Good to be able to be firm about it.

Anyhow, I'm up for hacking on it if anyone else is. Lower-level X11
programming would be nice to explore (and yes, I am aware of how big the
official manuals were ;)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: ion license

[Rob C]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1023 bytes --]

On 14/05/07, Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> Perhaps "atom," an uncharged single ion. =)
> > the words "uncharged ion" dont belong together as an ion by definition
> > carries a charge :p
>
> Heh how about "FreeRadical" then; don't they carry a charge?
>
> Other than tho, the guy is a complete jerk; as Arch said on the list they
> don't want any of his software ever again, irrespective of license, since
> he clearly doesn't understand the spirit of Free Software, and has caused
> so much upset with one thread. Good to be able to be firm about it.
>
> Anyhow, I'm up for hacking on it if anyone else is. Lower-level X11
> programming would be nice to explore (and yes, I am aware of how big the
> official manuals were ;)
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
I'll help out on a fork, in a purely bug squishing role. I don't have time
for active dev but I seem to have a strange fetish for gdb...

-- 
/**
  * Gentoo Linux Developer
  * GPG : 0x2217D168
  */

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1495 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: RFC: ion license

[Steve Long]

Rob C wrote:
> I'll help out on a fork, in a purely bug squishing role. I don't have time
> for active dev but I seem to have a strange fetish for gdb...
> 
Oh man, that is just what we need! Bug squashing is *hard*.

We're hanging out in #friendly-coders on irc.freenode.org for anyone who's
interested in this fork (I'm igli and inc_work is the other regular who's
expressed an interest (and can code ;) nox-Hand, Griz(64), welp, fragalot
and RobbieAB are the other main ops.)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list