2 ms·
A source based package manager which steals ownership of its packages when it sees fit is one that should struggle to attract contributions. It appeals even les
by JonChesterfield 3y ago
A source based package manager which steals ownership of its packages when it sees fit is one that should struggle to attract contributions. It appeals even less than the copyright model where all contributions are automatically owned by some specific group.
Though an argument could be made that github is a host of free software dedicated to the copyright infringement of said software, at least it doesn't currently try to usurp the nominal ownership of the packages.
- gmueckl 3y agoTwo counter arguments: The package registry entry isn't the package. At no time is the original creator deprived of their rights to their package. Any fork will have to respect whatever license the original creator assigned. Open source licenses are allow forking by design for a reason. Also, this whole thing needs to rest on a transparent process that doesn't make takeovers easy. There need to be clear criteria when takeovers can even be initiated, like extended inactivity (think 6 months or more) or unresponsive maintainers when serious issues are encountered. Also, there is not much harm in a mechanism for reclamation by the original package owner.
- pas 3y agothink of it as an NMU (non-maintainer upload) https://wiki.debian.org/NonMaintainerUpload https://wiki.debian.org/NonMaintainerUpload also, names in a registry should be "leased" not forever eternal perpetual immutable assigned to some guy