4 ms·

Wayback link to the issue: https://web.archive.org/web/20210225183856/https://github.com/albertlauncher/albert/issues/765 https://web.archive.org/web/2021022518

Wayback link to the issue: https://web.archive.org/web/20210225183856/https://github.com/albertlauncher/albert/issues/765 https://web.archive.org/web/20210225183856/https://github.co...

resoluteteeth 4y ago
Yes, based on this the author clearly removed the license because they wanted to prevent modifications, so the article title is incorrect. They unfortunately also couldn't be bothered to actually state this clearly (and they deleted this issue!), so they are causing unnecessary confusion.
- imglorp 4y ago
  Further confusion, the contributing page says > By contributing your code, you agree to license your contribution under the GPL license. According to the goals, only code that is well designed, documented, clear and readable will be accepted. Not sure what to make of it either.
cycomanic 4y ago
Oh wow I didn't know about this. I never contributed code, but hacked around some wayland issues when it caused crashes. I find the behavior baffling to be honest. On one hand ManuelSchneid3r claims to not be a lawyer, on the other hand he dismisses comments about included code and linking in GPL plugins as not relevant and not being copyrightable (well you have to be a judge really to determine that). Then he says he doesn't want to have to spend time on discussing licensing, but then creates this whole storm in a teacup by changing the license and then says even even wants to write his own license. Then he says his comments (in a now deleted issue even) that you can package for distros are sufficiently binding, but on the other hand claims that his note on the website that Albert is GPL did not mean the code was GPL because there was no license file in the repository. I think it would be good for him to sit down and sort out what are the goals that he would like to achieve. At the moment his behavior is clearly counterproductive. His main worry seems to be redistribution with changes, because somebody might do something malicious. But realistically what are the chances, and

Wayback link to the issue: https://web.archive.org/web/20210225183856/https://github.com/albertlauncher/albert/issues/765 https://web.archive.org/web/20210225183856/https://github.co...

resoluteteeth 4y ago

Yes, based on this the author clearly removed the license because they wanted to prevent modifications, so the article title is incorrect. They unfortunately also couldn't be bothered to actually state this clearly (and they deleted this issue!), so they are causing unnecessary confusion.

imglorp 4y ago
Further confusion, the contributing page says > By contributing your code, you agree to license your contribution under the GPL license. According to the goals, only code that is well designed, documented, clear and readable will be accepted. Not sure what to make of it either.

cycomanic 4y ago

Oh wow I didn't know about this. I never contributed code, but hacked around some wayland issues when it caused crashes. I find the behavior baffling to be honest. On one hand ManuelSchneid3r claims to not be a lawyer, on the other hand he dismisses comments about included code and linking in GPL plugins as not relevant and not being copyrightable (well you have to be a judge really to determine that). Then he says he doesn't want to have to spend time on discussing licensing, but then creates this whole storm in a teacup by changing the license and then says even even wants to write his own license. Then he says his comments (in a now deleted issue even) that you can package for distros are sufficiently binding, but on the other hand claims that his note on the website that Albert is GPL did not mean the code was GPL because there was no license file in the repository. I think it would be good for him to sit down and sort out what are the goals that he would like to achieve. At the moment his behavior is clearly counterproductive. His main worry seems to be redistribution with changes, because somebody might do something malicious. But realistically what are the chances, and