3 ms·

Exactly. The remedy for the original package author is to put up a banner on their project that says, "I will not be answering questions about my package on Nix

Exactly. The remedy for the original package author is to put up a banner on their project that says, "I will not be answering questions about my package on NixOS because I disagree with how NixOS packages my library." Failing that they could release their project under a non-free license that restricts redistribution in a way that excludes NixOS. I don't understand what their intent was in requesting that the NixOS packagers voluntarily give up rights that the author had explicitly granted them, via the MIT License.

squiggleblaz 5y ago
> Failing that they could release their project under a non-free license that restricts redistribution in a way that excludes NixOS. He wasn't happy with Fedora doing it either. It's a matter of redistribution, not a matter of NixOS. > I don't understand what their intent was in requesting that the NixOS packagers voluntarily give up rights that the author had explicitly granted them, via the MIT License. The author isn't proposing software that a person might use to solve a problem. He's part of a project (Home Automation) that provides a service, and writes tools to that end. People who fundamentally see themselves as providing a service prefer precisely specified, first party dependencies. They see GNU/Linux distributions (which connect users and developers - or alternatively stand between users and developers) as dead ends and irritations. He was saying "if you want to use this, go knock yourself out" but he's also saying "please don't get in between me and my clients".