5 ms·

Here's the thread NixOS posted to the Home Assistant forums, "Consider to avoid adding library dependencies from frenck." https://community.home-assistant.io/t

Here's the thread NixOS posted to the Home Assistant forums, "Consider to avoid adding library dependencies from frenck." https://community.home-assistant.io/t/consider-to-avoid-adding-library-dependencies-from-frenck/315185 https://community.home-assistant.io/t/consider-to-avoid-addi...

lucideer 5y ago
Wow, that thread is wild. If the views in that discussion are generally representative of the perspective of a majority of homeassistant maintainers & stewards, I'd be extremely wary of relying on the software long term. > Just do as he asks This is the absolute antithesis of the intent of open source. What an awful community response.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  > What an awful community response. You're expecting an entirely unrelated community of users to be invested in the goals and interests of NixOS. They're not, and perhaps they see Frenk's point in a way that people that aren't part of their community do not.
  - danhor 5y ago
    What Frenk is effectively saying is that he doesn't want his packages redistributed by distros. Since this is a dependency of home assistant, this means home assistant (as the whole package) can't be distributed if his wishes are respected. Additionally Frenk didn't react to any proposal to still distribute home assistant and it's dependencies while respecting his wishes. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of involving the upstream community, to make sure they're aware and ok with their dependencies trying to block distribution or to change something if that's not the case. The whole saga left me rethinking my home assistant usage, since it seems like this could become a larger issue with other distribution mechanism not sanctioned by upstream.
  - totony 5y ago
    Arguably the home assistant community is fragmented. What if Debian policy or whatever distro they use is targeted next? IMO there was no discussion in that thread just "remove from no" "we can't do that" repeat
  - lucideer 5y ago
    > You're expecting an entirely unrelated community of users to be invested in the goals and interests of NixOS. Nope. I'm expecting an open-source community to adhere to the intent of open-source, which is to provide software in a freely redistributable way to that puts users first in contrast to traditional Berne-convention-based IP approaches focused on author protection & remuneration above user utility. Any community placing authors as dictators of the distribution of their work at the expense of users are not aligned with open-source in intent. That's a perfectly reasonable stance if you have no interest in open-source: everyone is entitled to release closed-source software if they prefer.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > This is the absolute antithesis of the intent of open source. I disagree with this assertion (...and with Frenck too). There was no need for NixOS packagers to involve HA here, they are outsourcing work upstream. Imagine some small-time driver author/maintainer asking Debian to remove their driver - and Debian's solution to honor this request is to ask Linus to drop the driver from his upstream tree! The long-held tradition, when you disagree with upstream, is to maintain your own patch-set that you are responsible for and have to labor to keep current - that is not the antithesis of open source - it is very much in the spirit of exercising the right to change the source code as you see fit.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > Imagine some small-time driver author/maintainer asking Debian to remove their driver - and Debian's solution to honor this request is to ask Linus to drop the driver from his upstream tree! If their reason is "we don't want our driver distributed from someone else's git repo" then it would be a very good idea to warn Linus about it!
  - lucideer 5y ago
    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 opinion that NixOS should remove the package. That's definitively overstepping on their part, and completely against what open source is about.
    - aequitas 5y ago
      > 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.
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
richardfey 5y ago
Which was closed by the moderator..I tend to side with the author here.
gigel82 5y ago
Are you sure that's NixOS? Perhaps the issue is that NixOS doesn't have an official spokesperson? I'm sure someone like that would do a little more diligence before blasting on the home-assistant community forums about one of their moderators (and apparently the 4th largest code contributor to the ha project overall).

lucideer 5y ago

Wow, that thread is wild. If the views in that discussion are generally representative of the perspective of a majority of homeassistant maintainers & stewards, I'd be extremely wary of relying on the software long term. > Just do as he asks This is the absolute antithesis of the intent of open source. What an awful community response.

meepmorp 5y ago
> What an awful community response. You're expecting an entirely unrelated community of users to be invested in the goals and interests of NixOS. They're not, and perhaps they see Frenk's point in a way that people that aren't part of their community do not.
- danhor 5y ago
  What Frenk is effectively saying is that he doesn't want his packages redistributed by distros. Since this is a dependency of home assistant, this means home assistant (as the whole package) can't be distributed if his wishes are respected. Additionally Frenk didn't react to any proposal to still distribute home assistant and it's dependencies while respecting his wishes. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of involving the upstream community, to make sure they're aware and ok with their dependencies trying to block distribution or to change something if that's not the case. The whole saga left me rethinking my home assistant usage, since it seems like this could become a larger issue with other distribution mechanism not sanctioned by upstream.
- totony 5y ago
  Arguably the home assistant community is fragmented. What if Debian policy or whatever distro they use is targeted next? IMO there was no discussion in that thread just "remove from no" "we can't do that" repeat
- lucideer 5y ago
  > You're expecting an entirely unrelated community of users to be invested in the goals and interests of NixOS. Nope. I'm expecting an open-source community to adhere to the intent of open-source, which is to provide software in a freely redistributable way to that puts users first in contrast to traditional Berne-convention-based IP approaches focused on author protection & remuneration above user utility. Any community placing authors as dictators of the distribution of their work at the expense of users are not aligned with open-source in intent. That's a perfectly reasonable stance if you have no interest in open-source: everyone is entitled to release closed-source software if they prefer.
sangnoir 5y ago
> This is the absolute antithesis of the intent of open source. I disagree with this assertion (...and with Frenck too). There was no need for NixOS packagers to involve HA here, they are outsourcing work upstream. Imagine some small-time driver author/maintainer asking Debian to remove their driver - and Debian's solution to honor this request is to ask Linus to drop the driver from his upstream tree! The long-held tradition, when you disagree with upstream, is to maintain your own patch-set that you are responsible for and have to labor to keep current - that is not the antithesis of open source - it is very much in the spirit of exercising the right to change the source code as you see fit.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > Imagine some small-time driver author/maintainer asking Debian to remove their driver - and Debian's solution to honor this request is to ask Linus to drop the driver from his upstream tree! If their reason is "we don't want our driver distributed from someone else's git repo" then it would be a very good idea to warn Linus about it!
- lucideer 5y ago
  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 opinion that NixOS should remove the package. That's definitively overstepping on their part, and completely against what open source is about.
  - aequitas 5y ago
    > 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.
    - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

richardfey 5y ago

Which was closed by the moderator..I tend to side with the author here.

gigel82 5y ago

Are you sure that's NixOS? Perhaps the issue is that NixOS doesn't have an official spokesperson? I'm sure someone like that would do a little more diligence before blasting on the home-assistant community forums about one of their moderators (and apparently the 4th largest code contributor to the ha project overall).