[maemo-developers] Ask for removal of some packages from Extras Fremantle repository

[From: Gary Birkett]

why don't we ask a different question.

why doesn't HAM allow somebody to use a later provided version from Beniots
own repository?
there would be nothing wrong with leaving everything existing and Beniot can
get what he wants by still offering users the opportunity to add his own
repository and gain later updates and we retain the polished solid versions
available for regular users.

i believe that would satisfy both Beniot and everyone else without upheaval
as then he can feed back as he is comfortable and continue to be an
upstanding member of the maemo community?

gary




On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Darren Long <darren.long at mac.com> wrote:

>
> On 22 Mar 2010, at 23:15, Graham Cobb wrote:
>
> > On Monday 22 March 2010 20:41:33 Darren Long wrote:
> >> Doesn't the GPL say so?  I believe that if the source isn't provided
> with
> >> the binaries, then it has to be available for 3 years, from those who
> >> distributed the binaries, which in this case is maemo.org.
> >
> > Of course, if Benoit personally owns the copyright to some of those then
> he
> > can do what he likes with them -- he is not bound by his own licence and
> does
> > not have to continue to make source available if he does not wish to!
>
> I think you misunderstand me.
>
> This particular issue is exceptional, as a python app comes as source so
> the GPL is, as i understand it, inherently satisfied.
>
> However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not
> the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make
> the source available, for at least 3 years.
>
> I'm not complaining about Benoit or his wishes, I'm pre-emptively
> complaining about maemo.org, which I presume will remove the packages, as
> requested.  I don't think that action would be in the spirit of the GPL, the
> aim of which is to confer rights on the users of software, not the authors.
>
> If my interpretation of this is correct, then maemo.org should have a
> procedure for handling scenarios such as this one, so that we/they don't
> misguidedly violate the GPL, and perhaps also a policy which considers the
> rights of users and other rights holders fairly.
>
> >
> >> Its not this specific case I have issues with, its the principle, in
> >> general, of withdrawing GPL code from the maemo.org repos.  No-one has
> the
> >> right to require its removal.
> >
> > The maintainer who submitted it can require its removal.  We really do
> not
> > want code in the Maemo repositories where the maintainer has explicitly
> > withdrawn it.
>
> AFAICT, you may have no choice, for similar scenarios.  How else will
> maemo.org provide access to the source, once it is removed from the repos?
>
> >
> > Of course, if it has been made available under the GPL, and you have a
> copy of
> > the source, then you are welcome to volunteer as the new maintainer and
> > re-submit it.
>
> Obviously.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, if the upstream developer does not wish that then you
> > should at least consider their views.  You are within your rights to fork
> it
> > but should consider whether that is best, particularly if there is a risk
> the
> > developer will choose not to release further updates if their wishes are
> > disregarded.
>
> This is not my point.  My point is about maemo.org's obligation to provide
> source.  My point is not specific to this case, which serves merely as a bad
> example (due to the python factor).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Darren
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> maemo-developers mailing list
> maemo-developers at maemo.org
> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/attachments/20100323/eeacc698/attachment.htm>