Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)

[Mark Linimon]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:43:36AM +0000, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com> wrote:
> > Further, note that my initial commit tried to do this, and I asked the
> > author if it was acceptable.  It was clear from his reply that it was
> > not -- especially considering the following history:
> 
> It seemed acceptable wrt. the source package; I was querying the
> effect on binary packages.

It would have prevented binary packages.

> Also read again what I have written about the Xinerama module.
> Why is it not a separate package? What is it disguised as part
> of Ion, when it is not?

ion-3 is deleted -- both in source form, and in binary package form --
so the point is moot.

Even without the Xinerama code, I don't see how we could have met your
'no modifications' clause and still have ion-3 be able to run on FreeBSD.
In fact, I don't see how any packaging system can meet that standard.
Perhaps you can tell me where I'm wrong here.

My conclusions from your interactions with Debian + Gentoo + ArchLinux +
pkgsrc + OpenBSD is that it is not possible for us to meet your objections
in a timely fashion for this release.  Apparently only Debian felt like
they could meet your objections, even in absence of a deadline; the others
either deleted it, or, in the case of OpenBSD, stayed with an older version
that predates these licensing clauses.  I haven't investigated the state
of ion-3 with respect to any other major Linux distributions; the above
seem to me to be a representative enough sample.

Of course, I'm puzzled why the deletion of ion-3 wasn't enough to end this
discussion.  I myself have no further interest in discussing it.

mcl