6 ms·

You know, I just read that whole thread, and I don't see a problem. Maybe they were being jerks about it, or maybe some of that nuance was lost in translation.

You know, I just read that whole thread, and I don't see a problem. Maybe they were being jerks about it, or maybe some of that nuance was lost in translation. However, software licensing is a legal issue and legal issues are usually places where you don't want any ambiguity about intent and expected results. I don't think directness is necessarily a problem in this situation (think of how a cease and desist letter from a lawyer would read - it's not gonna spend a lot of time padding your ego).

dagenix 8y ago
You will change your oppinion immediately. You must comply with this directive or you must stop distributing your oppinion. I will not be as educational next time.
- em-bee 8y ago
  we are palemoon of borg. resistance is futile.
chrisseaton 8y ago
How can you possibly think that ‘You will revise your...’ and ‘I will not be as educational next time’ is an appropriate way to speak to someone? That set the whole thing down the wrong path from the start. What a waste.
- cweagans 8y ago
  Again, I think the translation barrier may have been a big part in the specific phrasing even if they were intentionally being blunt. I don't speak dutch and can't say definitively if that's the case, but I have spent a lot of time working with people who's first language it not english, and they can certainly come off as harsh at times when they don't mean to. In this case, it is entirely possible that "You should revise your..." was the intended meaning. I don't think that "I will not be as educational next time" is bad if one is defending a license, especially since the license is pretty clearly written and distributed with the software. There shouldn't have been a need for the maintainer to explain the problem in the first place, but since they were kind enough to do so, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that the next interaction on this topic will not be amicable (to me, that sounds like getting lawyers involved). Yes, it's very direct. Yes, it's probably a little too far toward outright dickishness. But that's their prerogative as the holders of the copyright, and they have to enforce it as they see fit. Nintendo does the same stuff and people get annoyed by it, but at the end of the day, it's their right to protect their property.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Here's how it could have all been different: > Hi, thanks for looking at packaging Pale Moon. Unfortunately the way you're doing it doesn't comply with our licence for these reasons ... Can you please make the following changes ... otherwise you won't have permission to distribute this build and we'll have to ask our lawyers to get involved if you did so.
ummonk 8y ago
It was clearly a developmental port, not something being distributed to users, and hence the license's restrictions on how you distribute Pale Moon weren't applicable.
kup0 8y ago
They were clearly being jerks about it, I don't think this is arguable. While I agree things need to be clear and direct when licensing/legality is involved, jumping in with an air of arrogant authority "you will comply" at the start of an issue seems pretty ridiculous to me. It's also questionable that their licensing/terms are even applicable in this case, something else they refuse to acknowledge. I guess overall, it doesn't matter all that much for users, but I certainly would not want to work with people that exhibit the kind of behavior they did in the thread. One of the worst parts is that it never stopped. Not even an iota of self-analysis or introspection occurred in the thread. No apologies for misunderstandings or coming off harsh, just a persistent arrogance.
michaelmrose 8y ago
What's wrong with this picture let me count the ways. - Packagers are free volunteer labor that make your software available to the multitude of platforms your software could potentially run on. On a lot of platforms the work required to turn your source into a useful package is work your end users wont do if someone doesn't package it for them. If you want people to do this laborious chore you at least speak to them kindly. After all they only get your and your users thanks for their work. - Not being able to work without a very specific set of libraries and versions isn't necessarily broken but not being able to and not being able to express that in the build is highly suggestive that it is a huge pile of hacks. Reading their own words thereafter it is indeed a huge pile of hacks. - The repo is a staging area for development of instructions to build software not a means to distribute software to end users. The makefile is a textual description of steps to build the software and other required libraries. On the one hand its dubious that it is copyrightable on the other if it is then copyright would lie with the github user developing openbsd. Further almost all of the code to be built strictly speaking belongs to the mozilla foundation. They are in fact asserting their trademark as a way to try to block people distributing machine readable instructions for building mozillas software. Trademark exists to keep merchants from distributing confusingly branded goods. This is actually machine instructions for building their actual goods from their actual sources with settings they don't approve of. To distribute the combined work would require rebranding. To distribute instructions to build their sources no more requires permission than saying the word palemoon here. - They do not possess the wherewithal to pursue legal action especially legal action that would cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect imaginary rights that they misunderstand. They have no revenue to speak of. Anyone can send a strongly worded letter and write cease and desist along the top in bold all caps printing. It doesn't make them a credible threat. When anyone can see the threat has no teeth it makes you look poor to make it. - It's incredibly predictable that someone with no investment or gain in helping you distribute your software will simply stop helping you if you threaten them with lawyers or talk shit. Since this is a negative outcome why do it? 10 seconds to pause and speak respectfully would be such a small investment. - They never realized their error and acknowledged their mistake. - Normal behavior for people that build your software in an unapproved way is to refuse to support users using unapproved configuration. This is a social norm. - Openbsd devs seem to have had good reason for their configuration choices that are perfectly reasonable. Do we need 7 more bullet points?

dagenix 8y ago

You will change your oppinion immediately. You must comply with this directive or you must stop distributing your oppinion. I will not be as educational next time.

em-bee 8y ago
we are palemoon of borg. resistance is futile.

chrisseaton 8y ago

How can you possibly think that ‘You will revise your...’ and ‘I will not be as educational next time’ is an appropriate way to speak to someone? That set the whole thing down the wrong path from the start. What a waste.

cweagans 8y ago
Again, I think the translation barrier may have been a big part in the specific phrasing even if they were intentionally being blunt. I don't speak dutch and can't say definitively if that's the case, but I have spent a lot of time working with people who's first language it not english, and they can certainly come off as harsh at times when they don't mean to. In this case, it is entirely possible that "You should revise your..." was the intended meaning. I don't think that "I will not be as educational next time" is bad if one is defending a license, especially since the license is pretty clearly written and distributed with the software. There shouldn't have been a need for the maintainer to explain the problem in the first place, but since they were kind enough to do so, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that the next interaction on this topic will not be amicable (to me, that sounds like getting lawyers involved). Yes, it's very direct. Yes, it's probably a little too far toward outright dickishness. But that's their prerogative as the holders of the copyright, and they have to enforce it as they see fit. Nintendo does the same stuff and people get annoyed by it, but at the end of the day, it's their right to protect their property.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Here's how it could have all been different: > Hi, thanks for looking at packaging Pale Moon. Unfortunately the way you're doing it doesn't comply with our licence for these reasons ... Can you please make the following changes ... otherwise you won't have permission to distribute this build and we'll have to ask our lawyers to get involved if you did so.

ummonk 8y ago

It was clearly a developmental port, not something being distributed to users, and hence the license's restrictions on how you distribute Pale Moon weren't applicable.

kup0 8y ago

They were clearly being jerks about it, I don't think this is arguable. While I agree things need to be clear and direct when licensing/legality is involved, jumping in with an air of arrogant authority "you will comply" at the start of an issue seems pretty ridiculous to me. It's also questionable that their licensing/terms are even applicable in this case, something else they refuse to acknowledge. I guess overall, it doesn't matter all that much for users, but I certainly would not want to work with people that exhibit the kind of behavior they did in the thread. One of the worst parts is that it never stopped. Not even an iota of self-analysis or introspection occurred in the thread. No apologies for misunderstandings or coming off harsh, just a persistent arrogance.

michaelmrose 8y ago

What's wrong with this picture let me count the ways. - Packagers are free volunteer labor that make your software available to the multitude of platforms your software could potentially run on. On a lot of platforms the work required to turn your source into a useful package is work your end users wont do if someone doesn't package it for them. If you want people to do this laborious chore you at least speak to them kindly. After all they only get your and your users thanks for their work. - Not being able to work without a very specific set of libraries and versions isn't necessarily broken but not being able to and not being able to express that in the build is highly suggestive that it is a huge pile of hacks. Reading their own words thereafter it is indeed a huge pile of hacks. - The repo is a staging area for development of instructions to build software not a means to distribute software to end users. The makefile is a textual description of steps to build the software and other required libraries. On the one hand its dubious that it is copyrightable on the other if it is then copyright would lie with the github user developing openbsd. Further almost all of the code to be built strictly speaking belongs to the mozilla foundation. They are in fact asserting their trademark as a way to try to block people distributing machine readable instructions for building mozillas software. Trademark exists to keep merchants from distributing confusingly branded goods. This is actually machine instructions for building their actual goods from their actual sources with settings they don't approve of. To distribute the combined work would require rebranding. To distribute instructions to build their sources no more requires permission than saying the word palemoon here. - They do not possess the wherewithal to pursue legal action especially legal action that would cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect imaginary rights that they misunderstand. They have no revenue to speak of. Anyone can send a strongly worded letter and write cease and desist along the top in bold all caps printing. It doesn't make them a credible threat. When anyone can see the threat has no teeth it makes you look poor to make it. - It's incredibly predictable that someone with no investment or gain in helping you distribute your software will simply stop helping you if you threaten them with lawyers or talk shit. Since this is a negative outcome why do it? 10 seconds to pause and speak respectfully would be such a small investment. - They never realized their error and acknowledged their mistake. - Normal behavior for people that build your software in an unapproved way is to refuse to support users using unapproved configuration. This is a social norm. - Openbsd devs seem to have had good reason for their configuration choices that are perfectly reasonable. Do we need 7 more bullet points?