5 ms·

Issue I opened explaining why this doesn't make any sense (2020): https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/15 https://github.com/do-not-the

Issue I opened explaining why this doesn't make any sense (2020): https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/15 https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issue... The responses from GNOME members were quite enlightening. Really shows the level of respect they have for anyone besides the in club.

orangepurple 3y ago
[flagged]
- Zambyte 3y ago
  There are quite a few other GNOME devs that have signed the letter, and presumably share the same sentiment.
  - sumtechguy 3y ago
    That will be an issue they will need to deal with because of the license they chose. They picked GPL (https://help.gnome.org/admin/gdm/stable/license.html.en https://help.gnome.org/admin/gdm/stable/license.html.en) that means as long as the intermediary ships their changes too then all is good. They are basically asking to be the only fork of their code. I get it, they have spent tons of time getting it 'just right'. They may find that a hard sell to some integrators who make it a point to put their own spin on their distro. This is basically a 'do not fork our code' ask.
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      It's more of a "don't fork, modify and distribute our code without QAing those changes and proving your own support."
      - sumtechguy 3y ago
        I get the idea. But the GPL allows for this? They would need a different license to get that? Pretty sure GPL is 'we may or may not give support if we feel like it' sort of license. The only real obligation is to provide the code including any changes you make.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        This letter isn't a legal demand, this is a request to people who are interested in the health of the ecosystem and community. The way similar sorts of issues are often enforced legally is by using trademarks so that if someone forks your project, they have to be clear that it is separate. In this case, it isn't a fork and it's hard to see how those tools would apply but the underlying issue of user confusion and brand harm are still similar.
        sumtechguy 3y ago
        Oh I get that. But what many do not realize when they give the work away like in the GPL you also give away control. They have given away control but now are asking for it back. That is up to the distros if they want to do that. They are perfectly allowed to do so. But they are perfectly allowed to not do so. This is one of the 'downsides' to open source. People may use your source in a way you do not like. I have this same conversation every few years with people on the net. It is usually about the time they realize people are not giving stuff back up stream (their intent) but realty is GPL does not require that. It basically is for a better term a fork. A small fork but a fork non the less. There are changes they are distributed downstream, but the rub is not back upstream. In this particular case people are going thru the trouble of making a theme pack that is kind of unfinished. But not finishing the work and not upstreaming it either for whatever reason. Hence the letter. But strongly worded letters do not always get things done. Maybe it will but I doubt it. The distros forked because the upstream was not doing what they needed. So the distro managers did it. But now they are asking 'just ignore that part of the GPL that says you can modify the code'. This is basically a missing feature of the upstream so downstream is adding it in. I see both sides I really do. But if you give away code do not always expect it to be used in the way you expect.
- lexicality 3y ago
  Searching "mikhaylenko gnome" gives you Alice's former name and past contributions.
dxbednarczyk 3y ago
> They're like an arrogant chef who, after cooking your dinner, instructs the waiter to remove all the salt and pepper shakers from the table because they don't want you changing the flavor of their dish. [1] https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/15#issuecomment-962569563 https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issue...
- Zambyte 3y ago
  And just before that > Just because something is technically possible and not illegal doesn't mean it's not a dick move [1] https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/15#issuecomment-648456147 https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issue...
- d_tr 3y ago
  They are more like a chef who asks the waiters to not add salt or pepper to the dish before serving it to customers, because the customers will blame the chef then. If the customer adds a ton of salt, then it's clearly their fault and the chef says he is fine with that. Sounds reasonable to me.
vinceguidry 3y ago
C'mon. You are telling people that build and maintain core infrastructure used on millions of Linux installations all around the world that they are fundamentally misunderstanding Linux. This is why I don't maintain free software, and God bless those who do.
- apetresc 3y ago
  If you look at the signees (especially the two or three that actually seem the most invested in this message, and responded to the discussion thread linked above), you will see that these are not the people building "core infrastructure" used by "millions". It's a random grab-bag of default Gnome applications, the kind most Linux users who are aware of alternatives immediately remove from distributions that ship it. "Random Gnome developers" as a group have been notorious for decades for not really gelling with the wider Linux ecosystem. Looking at the project maintained by the front-runner of this movement, it has had 5 total reported issues in the last year, none of which are related to theming, so I'm not sure I understand what the big support struggle they're chafing at is either.
  - vinceguidry 3y ago
    > It's a random grab-bag of default Gnome applications, Default applications! On one of the two major desktop frameworks in Linux! Oh I'm sure what you're working on is so much more important.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  Do you actually disagree with any of the points I made? Or just the fact that I made those points to people who supposedly have positions of authority?
  - vinceguidry 3y ago
    Yes, I do. But it's clear the words would be wasted when the perspectives are that far apart.
    - 3y ago

orangepurple 3y ago

[flagged]

Zambyte 3y ago
There are quite a few other GNOME devs that have signed the letter, and presumably share the same sentiment.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  That will be an issue they will need to deal with because of the license they chose. They picked GPL (https://help.gnome.org/admin/gdm/stable/license.html.en https://help.gnome.org/admin/gdm/stable/license.html.en) that means as long as the intermediary ships their changes too then all is good. They are basically asking to be the only fork of their code. I get it, they have spent tons of time getting it 'just right'. They may find that a hard sell to some integrators who make it a point to put their own spin on their distro. This is basically a 'do not fork our code' ask.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    It's more of a "don't fork, modify and distribute our code without QAing those changes and proving your own support."
    - sumtechguy 3y ago
      I get the idea. But the GPL allows for this? They would need a different license to get that? Pretty sure GPL is 'we may or may not give support if we feel like it' sort of license. The only real obligation is to provide the code including any changes you make.
      - shkkmo 3y ago
        This letter isn't a legal demand, this is a request to people who are interested in the health of the ecosystem and community. The way similar sorts of issues are often enforced legally is by using trademarks so that if someone forks your project, they have to be clear that it is separate. In this case, it isn't a fork and it's hard to see how those tools would apply but the underlying issue of user confusion and brand harm are still similar.
        sumtechguy 3y ago
        Oh I get that. But what many do not realize when they give the work away like in the GPL you also give away control. They have given away control but now are asking for it back. That is up to the distros if they want to do that. They are perfectly allowed to do so. But they are perfectly allowed to not do so. This is one of the 'downsides' to open source. People may use your source in a way you do not like. I have this same conversation every few years with people on the net. It is usually about the time they realize people are not giving stuff back up stream (their intent) but realty is GPL does not require that. It basically is for a better term a fork. A small fork but a fork non the less. There are changes they are distributed downstream, but the rub is not back upstream. In this particular case people are going thru the trouble of making a theme pack that is kind of unfinished. But not finishing the work and not upstreaming it either for whatever reason. Hence the letter. But strongly worded letters do not always get things done. Maybe it will but I doubt it. The distros forked because the upstream was not doing what they needed. So the distro managers did it. But now they are asking 'just ignore that part of the GPL that says you can modify the code'. This is basically a missing feature of the upstream so downstream is adding it in. I see both sides I really do. But if you give away code do not always expect it to be used in the way you expect.
lexicality 3y ago
Searching "mikhaylenko gnome" gives you Alice's former name and past contributions.

dxbednarczyk 3y ago

> They're like an arrogant chef who, after cooking your dinner, instructs the waiter to remove all the salt and pepper shakers from the table because they don't want you changing the flavor of their dish. [1] https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/15#issuecomment-962569563 https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issue...

Zambyte 3y ago
And just before that > Just because something is technically possible and not illegal doesn't mean it's not a dick move [1] https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/15#issuecomment-648456147 https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issue...
d_tr 3y ago
They are more like a chef who asks the waiters to not add salt or pepper to the dish before serving it to customers, because the customers will blame the chef then. If the customer adds a ton of salt, then it's clearly their fault and the chef says he is fine with that. Sounds reasonable to me.

vinceguidry 3y ago

C'mon. You are telling people that build and maintain core infrastructure used on millions of Linux installations all around the world that they are fundamentally misunderstanding Linux. This is why I don't maintain free software, and God bless those who do.

apetresc 3y ago
If you look at the signees (especially the two or three that actually seem the most invested in this message, and responded to the discussion thread linked above), you will see that these are not the people building "core infrastructure" used by "millions". It's a random grab-bag of default Gnome applications, the kind most Linux users who are aware of alternatives immediately remove from distributions that ship it. "Random Gnome developers" as a group have been notorious for decades for not really gelling with the wider Linux ecosystem. Looking at the project maintained by the front-runner of this movement, it has had 5 total reported issues in the last year, none of which are related to theming, so I'm not sure I understand what the big support struggle they're chafing at is either.
- vinceguidry 3y ago
  > It's a random grab-bag of default Gnome applications, Default applications! On one of the two major desktop frameworks in Linux! Oh I'm sure what you're working on is so much more important.
Zambyte 3y ago
Do you actually disagree with any of the points I made? Or just the fact that I made those points to people who supposedly have positions of authority?
- vinceguidry 3y ago
  Yes, I do. But it's clear the words would be wasted when the perspectives are that far apart.
  - 3y ago