Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation)

[Wesley Shields]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:56:13PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> Mikhail Teterin <mi+mill at aldan.algebra.com> wrote:
> >
> > ???????????? 12 ?????????????? 2007 06:35 ????, Bill Moran ???? ????????????????:
> > > It's his software. ??If his requirements can't be met, then the port comes
> > > out of the tree. ??What else do you expect to happen?
> > 
> > I expect the port-removal to be initiated/done in an orderly fashion. This 
> > includes marking it FORBIDDEN (or IGNORE, or BROKEN):
> > 
> >  FORBIDDEN= Violates licensing requirements of the author
> > 
> > and:
> > 
> >  EXPIRATION_DATE=<<Some date a few months from now>>
> > 
> > This would give those people, whom you expect to submit patches, some time to, 
> > actually, create them... Only if nothing materializes by the expiration date, 
> > should the port be deleted.
> 
> It's absolutely a shame that couldn't be done, but he demanded that the
> port be fixed prior to release.  Without a fix to hand, the only way to
> guarantee that FreeBSD wouldn't be in violation of the license agreement
> was to pull the port.
> 
> Generate a patch and submit it.  I'm sure the port will be reinstated as
> soon as somebody does so.

I am one of those users of Ion and after reading this thread I went and
looked around at alternatives, only to find out that I still liked Ion
the best.  I was willing to submit patches to bring the port in line
with Tuomo's wishes, until I read:
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/tur-users/2007-April/004634.html

My understanding of this thread is that if xinerama option is enabled
the package name must be changed to indicate it is not an official
release.  Apparently changing the package name to be
ion-OMG-YOU-ENABLED-XINERAMA-THIS-IS-NOT-A-SUPPORTED-PACKAGE is not
acceptable by him.  It is at this point that I decided his requests will
not be able to be met within the ports framework and it's better left
off dead.

I'll be maintaining my own copy of the port for my personal use, but I
don't see how the port can ever be revived given the statements he has
made in the link given above.  Let it die, please.

-- WXS