Ion3 port is obsolete

[Gilles Chehade-5]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 06:01:12PM +0000, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:

> On 2007-11-16, Craig Brozefsky <craig@...> wrote:
> > Yah, sucks to write free software, perhaps you should just stop.
>
> Indeed, Ion3 is my final gift to the FOSS herd, that it can never
> hope to repay. After that any software I might create, will come
> without any license at all (the djb way). With or without source,
> I have not yet decided. Probably without, since FOSS is degrading
> into a pile of steaming shit so fast, that I'm likely to be
> switching to Windows within a few years time, and binaries will
> work just fine there.
>

good for you, and what did you have for breakfast ?

--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/

[Tuomo Valkonen]

The Ion3 port at [1] is obsolete and should be upgraded, or at
least users be made very sure that they don't come asking me for
help. It is also misnamed: there's no such things as "Ion 20070318".
It's Ion3, __development snapshot__ 20070318. Read that emphasised
portion again, and think for a moment. Users should be made _highly_
aware of that fact, especially when distributing such antiquated
releases.

  [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/ion-20070318p1.tgz-long.html

--
Tuomo

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2007/11/16 17:08, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> The Ion3 port at [1] is obsolete and should be upgraded, or at
> least users be made very sure that they don't come asking me for
> help. It is also misnamed: there's no such things as "Ion 20070318".
> It's Ion3, __development snapshot__ 20070318. Read that emphasised
> portion again, and think for a moment. Users should be made _highly_
> aware of that fact, especially when distributing such antiquated
> releases.
>
>   [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/ion-20070318p1.tgz-long.html

The version in tree is before the license change; the additional
restrictions on the newer code are a problem.

Your new license requires that all old OS releases with Ion(tm)
packages have upgrades made available within 28 days, even if
that OS release is no longer supported.

This is somewhat counter-productive imho, since the change
encourages people to continue distributing the obsolete code
that came with the standard LGPL (or just remove the package),
rather than update...

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16, Stuart Henderson <stu@...> wrote:
> The version in tree is before the license change; the additional
> restrictions on the newer code are a problem.

They are not a problem for reasonable distributors that care to pay
a bit of respect towards the author's time and work. Of course, reason,
literacy, and respect towards authors and persoanl choice are something
seldom seen among the FOSS herd, rather replacing them with blind ideology
and monocultures. It is a popular myth that you have to provide the new
release within 28 days, and although I encourage that, it is not true
and what the license says. Alternatively, you must after those 28 days
prominently notify the user installing the software that the release
is likely to be antiquated, not representative of the project's present
state, and the author will not provide support for it. Not much asked,
in my opinion. You could even base this notification on a dead-man
switch, which would be quite nice even generally, considering package
maintainers often going MIA.

--
Tuomo

[Marco Peereboom]

Licenses can not be retro actively imposed.  This package was done
before your license change and therefore it'll remain just like it is.

I am a pre-ion user and can't even begin to tell you how retarded your new
license is.  You got what you wanted, you rendered your open source
developments useless.  Enjoy.  Meanwhile I'll use "Ion3, __development
snapshot__ 20070318" until something that suits me better comes along.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 05:08:07PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:

> The Ion3 port at [1] is obsolete and should be upgraded, or at
> least users be made very sure that they don't come asking me for
> help. It is also misnamed: there's no such things as "Ion 20070318".
> It's Ion3, __development snapshot__ 20070318. Read that emphasised
> portion again, and think for a moment. Users should be made _highly_
> aware of that fact, especially when distributing such antiquated
> releases.
>
>   [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/ion-20070318p1.tgz-long.html
>
> --
> Tuomo
>

[Marco Peereboom]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 04:26:05PM +0000, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:

> On 2007-11-16, Stuart Henderson <stu@...> wrote:
> > The version in tree is before the license change; the additional
> > restrictions on the newer code are a problem.
>
> They are not a problem for reasonable distributors that care to pay
> a bit of respect towards the author's time and work. Of course, reason,
> literacy, and respect towards authors and persoanl choice are something
> seldom seen among the FOSS herd, rather replacing them with blind ideology
> and monocultures. It is a popular myth that you have to provide the new
> release within 28 days, and although I encourage that, it is not true
> and what the license says. Alternatively, you must after those 28 days
> prominently notify the user installing the software that the release
> is likely to be antiquated, not representative of the project's present
> state, and the author will not provide support for it. Not much asked,
> in my opinion. You could even base this notification on a dead-man
> switch, which would be quite nice even generally, considering package
> maintainers often going MIA.

Package is no longer maintained due to your license change.  I fail to
see the relevance of trying to retroactively impose its new terms.

>
> --
> Tuomo
>

[Theo de Raadt]

        On 2007-11-16, Stuart Henderson <stu@...> wrote:
        > The version in tree is before the license change; the additional
        > restrictions on the newer code are a problem.

        They are not a problem for reasonable distributors that care to pay
        a bit of respect towards the author's time and work. Of course, reason,
        literacy, and respect towards authors and persoanl choice are something
        seldom seen among the FOSS herd, rather replacing them with blind ideology
        and monocultures. It is a popular myth that you have to provide the new
        release within 28 days, and although I encourage that, it is not true
        and what the license says. Alternatively, you must after those 28 days
        prominently notify the user installing the software that the release
        is likely to be antiquated, not representative of the project's present
        state, and the author will not provide support for it. Not much asked,
        in my opinion. You could even base this notification on a dead-man
        switch, which would be quite nice even generally, considering package
        maintainers often going MIA.

Boy, that's a lot of "must"'s in that paragraph.  Sure sounds free.

It's free, but you MUST <list of things>

What's great about me jumping into this conversation is that you
talking about respect of the author is so interesting.  I don't use
your software, but I am sure you use OpenSSH.  And now you are telling
me what I (who distribute OpenBSD with all the things) must do.

You say "Not much asked, in my opinion."

But you did not ask.  You demanded, and everyone can see that.

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16 10:13 -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Boy, that's a lot of "must"'s in that paragraph.  Sure sounds free.

Typically "free" means: free for the herd to do anything,
including fucking the author in the arse. Straitjacket and
pain in the arse for the author who has to bear with the herd.

So, please, spare me of your ideology.

> It's free, but you MUST <list of things>

Hmm... I guess (L)GPL isn't very free. It isn't, in fact; and I
do consider the BSD license more "free". In fact, the name use
terms in my license are basically all that I care about; the LGPL
is just baggage.

--
Tuomo

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16 11:05 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Package is no longer maintained due to your license change.  

So remove it. Speaks loads of the so-called quality of the
OpenBSD distribution when it distributes ancient unmaintained
software with various bugs.

--
Tuomo

[Antti Harri]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Marco Peereboom wrote:

> [snipped]
> Meanwhile I'll use "Ion3, __development
> snapshot__ 20070318" until something that suits me better comes along.

Wasn't there a fork already that was based on the last
version with GPL?

--
Antti Harri

[Marco Peereboom]

It works fine as it is and it won't be removed.  You should have thought
of the legal repercussions of writing free software.  You gave it away
back then so you can't take it back.  As they say, you can't put the
shit back in the horse.

You can cry us a river all day long using strong profanity.  It will not
change the law.

I have a suggestion for you; why don't you rename your software to
something else instead of ion, it'll make all the evil people using
what-used-to-be-called-ion go away.  Problem solved.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 07:27:53PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:

> On 2007-11-16 11:05 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > Package is no longer maintained due to your license change.  
>
> So remove it. Speaks loads of the so-called quality of the
> OpenBSD distribution when it distributes ancient unmaintained
> software with various bugs.
>
> --
> Tuomo
>

[Craig Brozefsky]

Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@...> writes:

> On 2007-11-16 10:13 -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Boy, that's a lot of "must"'s in that paragraph.  Sure sounds free.
>
> Typically "free" means: free for the herd to do anything,
> including fucking the author in the arse. Straitjacket and
> pain in the arse for the author who has to bear with the herd.

Yah, sucks to write free software, perhaps you should just stop.

> So, please, spare me of your ideology.

And spare us your gripes.

<plonk>


--
Sincerely, Craig Brozefsky              <craig@...>
what a klon  - neko           http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Less matter, more form!                       - Bruno Schulz
ignazz, I am truly korrupted by yore sinful tzourceware. -jb

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16, Craig Brozefsky <craig@...> wrote:
> Yah, sucks to write free software, perhaps you should just stop.

Indeed, Ion3 is my final gift to the FOSS herd, that it can never
hope to repay. After that any software I might create, will come
without any license at all (the djb way). With or without source,
I have not yet decided. Probably without, since FOSS is degrading
into a pile of steaming shit so fast, that I'm likely to be
switching to Windows within a few years time, and binaries will
work just fine there.

--
Tuomo

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16 11:40 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I have a suggestion for you; why don't you rename your software to
> something else instead of ion, it'll make all the evil people using
> what-used-to-be-called-ion go away.  Problem solved.

The whole point is that Ion is name that is associated with me, and
the distros are tarnishing it by distributing significantly modified
and out-dated software as Ion, without prominently mentioning this.

I'm sure OpenBSD would like very much for me to distribute some
ancient and significantly modified release as the latest. Except,
of course, I don't have the resources for such to have much of an
effect, unlike The Party, i.e. the big distros.

--
Tuomo

[Marco Peereboom]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 08:07:12PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-11-16 11:40 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > I have a suggestion for you; why don't you rename your software to
> > something else instead of ion, it'll make all the evil people using
> > what-used-to-be-called-ion go away.  Problem solved.
>
> The whole point is that Ion is name that is associated with me, and
> the distros are tarnishing it by distributing significantly modified
> and out-dated software as Ion, without prominently mentioning this.

You knew that when you distributed the original under its original
license.  If you didn't that is your fault.  Don't blame me for using
free software under a relatively well understood license.

>
> I'm sure OpenBSD would like very much for me to distribute some
> ancient and significantly modified release as the latest. Except,
> of course, I don't have the resources for such to have much of an
> effect, unlike The Party, i.e. the big distros.

The only thing I'd like (I am not cocky enough to pretend I know what
the entire OpenBSD community wants) is for the software to get its
original license back so that it could be maintained like it was.  Oh
and FWIW, OpenBSD left ion almost identical to your specifications.  The
only thing that was modified was to have the large menu when pressing
F12.  The rest was 100% identical to what you did.  OpenBSD stayed
within the spirit of your developments however you chose to sever the
ties to the OpenBSD project the second you changed that license.
OpenBSD fulfilled all legal requirements as per your original license.

>
> --
> Tuomo
>

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16 12:25 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> You knew that when you distributed the original under its original
> license.  If you didn't that is your fault.  Don't blame me for using
> free software under a relatively well understood license.

No, I just didn't think back then about the license so much; I did
not realise what kind of dickheads and fuckwits the FOSS herd is
composed of. Call me naive if you want. But as the project started
to gain popularity, you get a lot of people complaining and asking
help for ancient versions distributed by the distributions that also
have in the meanwhile become more powerful, and gained more central
control over conveniently installable software. And at the same time
FOSS detoriorates by forcing the anti-aliasing fascist fontconfig/Xft
nearly everywhere, and now the herd modifies the version of Ion their
distros carry to use that crap, which I will have nothing to do with
until my demands [1] are met.

When I first started out on Ion, I had hope in FOSS. All that has
been lost now. Most people are dickheads and fuckwits everywhere,
no matter their proclaimed ideals of so-called "freedom". FOSS
licenses are only for naive people and those who go with the
herd. As should be apparent, I don't.


  [1]: http://iki.fi/tuomov/ion/faq/entries/Blurred_fonts.html

--
Tuomo

[Marc Balmer]

Tuomo Valkonen wrote:

> On 2007-11-16, Craig Brozefsky <craig@...> wrote:
>> Yah, sucks to write free software, perhaps you should just stop.
>
> Indeed, Ion3 is my final gift to the FOSS herd, that it can never
> hope to repay. After that any software I might create, will come
> without any license at all (the djb way). With or without source,
> I have not yet decided. Probably without, since FOSS is degrading
> into a pile of steaming shit so fast, that I'm likely to be
> switching to Windows within a few years time, and binaries will
> work just fine there.
>

but windows does not need a window manager...

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16 20:13 +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
> but windows does not need a window manager...

Indeed, Ion is my only remaining umblical cord to FOSS crap, and
no thanks to the FOSS herd, but vestiges of software from the age
before the FOSS craze, from the age before the WIMP desktop model
became hegemonic. If Windows could provide something like Ion, I
wouldn't think twice of switching to it.

--
Tuomo

[Marc Balmer]

Tuomo Valkonen wrote:

> On 2007-11-16 12:25 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>> You knew that when you distributed the original under its original
>> license.  If you didn't that is your fault.  Don't blame me for using
>> free software under a relatively well understood license.
>
> No, I just didn't think back then about the license so much; I did
> not realise what kind of dickheads and fuckwits the FOSS herd is
> composed of. Call me naive if you want. But as the project started
> to gain popularity, you get a lot of people complaining and asking
> help for ancient versions distributed by the distributions that also
> have in the meanwhile become more powerful, and gained more central
> control over conveniently installable software. And at the same time
> FOSS detoriorates by forcing the anti-aliasing fascist fontconfig/Xft
> nearly everywhere, and now the herd modifies the version of Ion their
> distros carry to use that crap, which I will have nothing to do with
> until my demands [1] are met.
>
> When I first started out on Ion, I had hope in FOSS. All that has
> been lost now. Most people are dickheads and fuckwits everywhere,
> no matter their proclaimed ideals of so-called "freedom". FOSS
> licenses are only for naive people and those who go with the
> herd. As should be apparent, I don't.

"no tiene cojones", as the spaniard would say...

>
>
>   [1]: http://iki.fi/tuomov/ion/faq/entries/Blurred_fonts.html
>

[Marco Peereboom]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:06:21PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-11-16 12:25 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > You knew that when you distributed the original under its original
> > license.  If you didn't that is your fault.  Don't blame me for using
> > free software under a relatively well understood license.
>
> No, I just didn't think back then about the license so much; I did
> not realise what kind of dickheads and fuckwits the FOSS herd is
> composed of. Call me naive if you want. But as the project started

You are naive.  The open source community is harsh and does not tend to
cater to someone's feelings.  Kind of like the real world.

> to gain popularity, you get a lot of people complaining and asking
> help for ancient versions distributed by the distributions that also
> have in the meanwhile become more powerful, and gained more central
> control over conveniently installable software. And at the same time
> FOSS detoriorates by forcing the anti-aliasing fascist fontconfig/Xft
> nearly everywhere, and now the herd modifies the version of Ion their
> distros carry to use that crap, which I will have nothing to do with
> until my demands [1] are met.

I fail to see how that is your problem.  Its free software, they change
it they deal with it.  The only choice you have to make is how much fun
to poke at those people.

Why do you care if someone else is starring at blurry fonts?
Why do you care if someone else is watching those fonts scroll by at a
snails pace slowing down their overall machine?

Really, why do you care about someone's stupidity?

>
> When I first started out on Ion, I had hope in FOSS. All that has
> been lost now. Most people are dickheads and fuckwits everywhere,
> no matter their proclaimed ideals of so-called "freedom". FOSS
> licenses are only for naive people and those who go with the
> herd. As should be apparent, I don't.

You should take up some drama classes and put that anger to use.

Dealing with Linux people tends to anger people.  Maybe you should try to
leave the linuxers behind and work in a more constructive community.  I
for one truly appreciate ion and its intentions.  Knowing other folks
that use ion, they agree and do the same.  Your bitterness stems from
getting involved with people you are incompatible with.  I'll be the
first to admit that getting involved in the Linux community is
frustrating and boring.  I therefore quit the community and found one
that I am compatible with.

And if you are that pissed off, why don't you just quit?
You don't owe anyone anything.

>
>
>   [1]: http://iki.fi/tuomov/ion/faq/entries/Blurred_fonts.html
>
> --
> Tuomo
>