• Crestwave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Just because it’s open source

      It’s not open source. The maintainer relicensed the project from GPL to the current source-available license last year.

      The AUR package uses the last GPL release before the change and thus does the current license does not apply.

      • mobotsar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes ago

        It is still open source. The attempt at relicensing isn’t legally valid. The consent of earlier contributors was not obtained.

            • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              It should end at the dev putting out some sort of communication stating they’re not responsible for packaging, and to reach out to the package maintainers with issues installing from a package and not from the officially documented/supported installation procedure. That isn’t out of the norm at all for the open source community, and is one of the main reasons for releasing source code - to enable other people to build it and try to get it to work in whatever environment they want to.

              That shouldn’t require a change to a much more restrictive license, and it certainly shouldn’t require implementing changes to your code that force it to fail on specific OSes (like what was recently added for Arch).

            • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              The overwhelming majority of Linux users are on 4 distros + derivatives. Debian Fedora Arch Suse not “thousands”

              Where would what end? Most actually open source projects just publish releases to source and provide as much or as little support as they feel like. Slap a github issues page up and tell every user that you are only interested in dealing with bugs in the most recent version in whatever official channel you prefer eg provide appimage of releases and insist that users reproduce and document bug.

              Time wasted mostly wont even bother to create a github account and if they do close issues if they can’t follow directions.

              • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Plus you can just make a flatpak or appimage and be done with it since those are distro agnostic. Wouldn’t be the first software where the flatpak is the only supported version and the AUR isn’t; see OBS

                • lad@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  22 hours ago

                  Higher in this thread they said the author does provide a flatpak, so this didn’t seem to work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Indeed. If he changed the license to allow packaging the new version, at least all of those reports would be of the current version rather than the last GPL one.

                  Let the community in and use their time to contribute rather than locking it down as a one man project and then complaining about it.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just because it’s open source doesn’t mean it’s necessarily open for all uses. His license explicitly denied using his code in packages. People did it anyway.

      There exists pkgbuilds for arch and previously packages of the older GPL builds.

      A pkgbuild is just a recipe for each users computer do do the stuff needed to fetch and or build publicly available software. It is copyright the writer of the recipe not the owner of the software thus fetched. That is to say the owner of foobar can’t copyright the functional equivalent of a bash script which does git clone and make install foobar.

      The older versions thereof are still available under the GPL and aren’t subject to being removed.

      Neither of these are actually subject to the authors whims. He doesn’t own the pkgbuild and if he chooses to offer the file to users they can download it either by manually git cloning it or having a script do it.

      So no they didn’t “do it anyway”