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