3 ms·

This article passes over the tone of the communication, which was really the driver for most of the discussion in that thread. Many people had sympathy for the

This article passes over the tone of the communication, which was really the driver for most of the discussion in that thread. Many people had sympathy for the situation, but many also had problems with the way the creator approached the discussions. The comment that is specifically quoted about "not understanding the spirit of FOSS" wasn't even about asking to have a package excluded, it was about the refusal of the dev to engage in any sort of discussion and just the overall unhelpful attitude he took (which the dev improved upon in later communications).

zargon 5y ago
I get the feeling that the demand to have such a conversation, at the whim of downstream, is a significant part of the burden the author wished to avoid. At least it would be for me in his position. I may express a preference and desire not to be forced to expend the (considerable) effort to find words to defend it to the satisfaction of some third party (who may never be satisfied).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- solidasparagus 5y ago
  But downstream didn't demand anything. AFAIK there was no communication until the dev asked for it to be removed, they asked why, and he said the equivalent of "just do what I say", which obviously didn't get him anywhere. And the public opinion was really only against the dev because he was being intentionally difficult while the NixOS people were bending over backwards to look for a mutually-satisfying solution. It would have been a non-story if the dev hadn't been a bit of an ass in public forums.
  - zargon 5y ago
    > But downstream didn't demand anything. As you described above, they damanded a conversation about why he was making the request he did. They couldn't just acknowledge that he had a request and choose to respect it or not when it was clear he didn't want to talk about it. Instead they dragged him into a huge spectacle. Even after they closed the issue on their side, (other?) NixOS people went to endlessly harass him on the home assistant forums.
    - ninjin 5y ago
      Not sure if I agree with “NixOS people went to endlessly harass him” unless there is another thread apart from this one [1]. Mic92 is clearly well across the line stating that “to keep the home-assistant free-software it would be better not increase the reliance on his projects”, but for example SuperSandro2000 and blaggacao are certainly not harassing unless you deem any action rather than accepting frenck’s request harassment. The whole exchange also seems to have lasted for about three hours. It could (and should) probably have been avoided, but let us not blow a brief interchange on a public e-mail list out of proportion. [1]: 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... Personally, I probably would have sided with jtojnar that cited Debian’s policy to drop packages when the relationship to the upstream is beyond repairing [2]. [2]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326#issuecomment-860067488 https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326#issuecomment-86...
    - SuperSandro2000 5y ago
      > NixOS people went to endlessly harass him on the home assistant forums. That is just a lie and not what happened.
    - squiggleblaz 5y ago
      > As you described above, they damanded a conversation about why he was making the request he did. They didn't demand a conversation. They continued a conversation. If he doesn't want to engage in discussion with them he shouldn't have. > They couldn't just acknowledge that he had a request and choose to respect it or not when it was clear he didn't want to talk about it. They were trying to arrive at a compromise. This is usually regarded as part of good faith negotiations. Trying to describe this as "dragging him into a huge spectacle" is quite shocking to me. Do you genuinely believe that if a person says "please do not distribute my package" the only reply to that thread should be one that says "we will remove it" or "we will not remove it" and then the thread should be closed? > Even after they closed the issue on their side, (other?) NixOS people went to endlessly harass him on the home assistant forums. I don't think this is an accurate description of that thread, but indeed, I think opening that thread was an example of poor judgement. A threat to make a certain library proprietary during a heated discussion is something that might be reconsidered or it might be a bluff. It should be confined to the negotiation unless it comes to fruition.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  But then it should be licenced so that people downstream don't think they can use it. The conversation was because the guy stuck a sign saying "anyone can use this for whatever reason" and then was unhappy at people doing just that and wanted them to just accept that.
  - zargon 5y ago
    He made it known that he had a preference about the usage of his library that wasn't codified in the license, while also acknowledging the rights he had granted by using the license he did. He may or may not have had reasons for making it MIT. There aren't really standard licenses for situations like this. Using a non-standard license has its own problems. He may not have anticipated getting the attention it did. Or whatever other reasons. I don't think it's necessarily easy to anticipate all future situations and codify them into a license ahead of time. He may change the license going forward as a result of this and that is fine too.
    - abdullahkhalids 5y ago
      Just to add on, the license is for the current and past versions of the program. Distributing a program as FOSS is not a promise that the author will continue to improve the software, or that future versions will also be FOSS. So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that "hey I can't maintain this software if you include it in your distribution because of the added workload".
      - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
        > So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that "hey I can't maintain this software if you include it in your distribution because of the added workload". Plausibly, but AFAIK this author (and certainly this package) has never received a bug report from a NixOS user.

zargon 5y ago

I get the feeling that the demand to have such a conversation, at the whim of downstream, is a significant part of the burden the author wished to avoid. At least it would be for me in his position. I may express a preference and desire not to be forced to expend the (considerable) effort to find words to defend it to the satisfaction of some third party (who may never be satisfied).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
solidasparagus 5y ago
But downstream didn't demand anything. AFAIK there was no communication until the dev asked for it to be removed, they asked why, and he said the equivalent of "just do what I say", which obviously didn't get him anywhere. And the public opinion was really only against the dev because he was being intentionally difficult while the NixOS people were bending over backwards to look for a mutually-satisfying solution. It would have been a non-story if the dev hadn't been a bit of an ass in public forums.
- zargon 5y ago
  > But downstream didn't demand anything. As you described above, they damanded a conversation about why he was making the request he did. They couldn't just acknowledge that he had a request and choose to respect it or not when it was clear he didn't want to talk about it. Instead they dragged him into a huge spectacle. Even after they closed the issue on their side, (other?) NixOS people went to endlessly harass him on the home assistant forums.
  - ninjin 5y ago
    Not sure if I agree with “NixOS people went to endlessly harass him” unless there is another thread apart from this one [1]. Mic92 is clearly well across the line stating that “to keep the home-assistant free-software it would be better not increase the reliance on his projects”, but for example SuperSandro2000 and blaggacao are certainly not harassing unless you deem any action rather than accepting frenck’s request harassment. The whole exchange also seems to have lasted for about three hours. It could (and should) probably have been avoided, but let us not blow a brief interchange on a public e-mail list out of proportion. [1]: 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... Personally, I probably would have sided with jtojnar that cited Debian’s policy to drop packages when the relationship to the upstream is beyond repairing [2]. [2]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326#issuecomment-860067488 https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326#issuecomment-86...
  - SuperSandro2000 5y ago
    > NixOS people went to endlessly harass him on the home assistant forums. That is just a lie and not what happened.
  - squiggleblaz 5y ago
    > As you described above, they damanded a conversation about why he was making the request he did. They didn't demand a conversation. They continued a conversation. If he doesn't want to engage in discussion with them he shouldn't have. > They couldn't just acknowledge that he had a request and choose to respect it or not when it was clear he didn't want to talk about it. They were trying to arrive at a compromise. This is usually regarded as part of good faith negotiations. Trying to describe this as "dragging him into a huge spectacle" is quite shocking to me. Do you genuinely believe that if a person says "please do not distribute my package" the only reply to that thread should be one that says "we will remove it" or "we will not remove it" and then the thread should be closed? > Even after they closed the issue on their side, (other?) NixOS people went to endlessly harass him on the home assistant forums. I don't think this is an accurate description of that thread, but indeed, I think opening that thread was an example of poor judgement. A threat to make a certain library proprietary during a heated discussion is something that might be reconsidered or it might be a bluff. It should be confined to the negotiation unless it comes to fruition.
MattGaiser 5y ago
But then it should be licenced so that people downstream don't think they can use it. The conversation was because the guy stuck a sign saying "anyone can use this for whatever reason" and then was unhappy at people doing just that and wanted them to just accept that.
- zargon 5y ago
  He made it known that he had a preference about the usage of his library that wasn't codified in the license, while also acknowledging the rights he had granted by using the license he did. He may or may not have had reasons for making it MIT. There aren't really standard licenses for situations like this. Using a non-standard license has its own problems. He may not have anticipated getting the attention it did. Or whatever other reasons. I don't think it's necessarily easy to anticipate all future situations and codify them into a license ahead of time. He may change the license going forward as a result of this and that is fine too.
  - abdullahkhalids 5y ago
    Just to add on, the license is for the current and past versions of the program. Distributing a program as FOSS is not a promise that the author will continue to improve the software, or that future versions will also be FOSS. So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that "hey I can't maintain this software if you include it in your distribution because of the added workload".
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      > So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that "hey I can't maintain this software if you include it in your distribution because of the added workload". Plausibly, but AFAIK this author (and certainly this package) has never received a bug report from a NixOS user.