(yes, another entry today, yeesh!)
Nathan Willis complains about people complaining when other people take their work they are releasing under open licenses and runs off with it. in particular, the oxygen icons.
here's what Nathan skips over: open doesn't mean "no respect". open doesn't mean "no responsibility". when someone releases something openly, we have a huge amount of thanks to pay those people. when they make a simple request, such as, "wait until we're done, please" it begs a person to stop and say, "ok, i'll wait".
of course you don't have to. everyone is free to be as uncooperative and anti-social as they wish. and that's what this comes down to: anti-social behaviour.
this was not about "closing the process", as Nathan claimed: oxygen is developed in the open, in an open repository, under open licenses and people from all over contribute. that's hardly closing anything.
in particular, note that David never complained about the illegality of this theme pack. in fact, he cheered the idea of the icons and ideas from oxygen spreading. in a word, Nathan completely misrepresented what David said. i don't like it when people do that to my friends, and neither should you.
moreover, what David did say was that the theme package is not representative of Oxygen: it's a mish mash of icons and other accidents, and that this is exactly why they are asking for people to hold off on releasing packages around it.
it's no different than a software project asking linux distros not to package their software for default installation because it's still alpha quality. yes, distros can do that, and yes the project has the right to feel slighted for the bad reputation it may gain them.
if we want our efforts, all of our efforts, to succeed ... once in a while we have to respect the judgment calls of others in our community when it comes to their own creations.
Nathan: to you, i'm sorely disappointed in your point of view. i respect your right to have one, i just wish it was a bit more humane and informed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments:
The point of release something with a Free license is to give righs to do what ever you want as long it remains free, if you WHINE or try to restrict why YOU ALLOW with license be it in a "moral" or technical way, or whatever then, why tf? are writing free software in the first place?
nuff said.
Sorry I really can't agree with you. It is FOSS!
So where is the point in FOSS if you can't us it? If one opens up a development one has to live with it that others might use it for other purposes. Even if David thinks that it's maybe not polite to use the icons at this stage it's still the freedom of everyone to use them, even now.
KDE is a fully open source project and FOSS is not only free beer its also free speach and this freedom includes using code (or icons) befor the actual releas. If we break with the basics of FOSS the whole project will fail.
aaron, I agree with you entirely. well spoken!
@ramsees: did you read the post? the point is that unofficial pre-releases of the oxygen icons are poor representations of the quality put into the project. it's not a matter of doing the legal or even the right thing, it's a matter of respecting the wishes of a project.
"The point of release something with a Free license is to give rights to do what ever you want as long it remains free,"
I've made a theme package for Kadu Instant Messenger. I've put it on the web becouse I need some more people involved in making icons. Yet this theme package wasn't finished so I've added "!! THEME IS NOT FINISHED SO PLEAS DON'T (RE)DISTRIBUTE IT NOW" in README.txt
And I would be disappointed if someone would distribute it as finished product.
Very well said!
I felt his inclusion of the Oxygen issue (which is not an issue at all and is nothing unusual as you clearly explained) was more or less "political correctness" putting it side-by-side to the totally unacceptable behavior of the GIMP developers.
(Anyway, I just compiled Koffice 2 and will get to tinker with Krita a little ;)
You're the man, Aaron!
Its a fine line; but I see no conflict between having a open licence and still respecting the wishes of the authors.
btw it looks like you've been dugg:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Aaron_Seigo_Oxygen_icon_controversy_Open_and_responsible
I by all means have no idea of how this icon-pack looks, but what if those that released it did it for what they thought was a greater good?
Of course, I understand your point, but the fact that someone made a pack out of them (and maybe other icons) could also be the result of the same guy wanting the icons on his own desktop, and then got a request for a pack.
But shure, if this was done with just the intentions or hurting the oxygen reputation, then it was someone exploiting the license, but none the less legal (albeit unethical from my view at least).
For the people who complain, "but it's my right, why are you upset", here's a simple example:
Because of the freedom of speech, someone can call me an ass for no reason. But I doubt I would think nicely of that person, and I think most people nearby would consider that person extremely rude.
So while you have the right to distribute stuff even if the author asks you to wait, don't be surprised when everyone else starts calling you names. After all, that's our right.
"After all, that's our right."
It is your right if I express that I want to be called like that, just like Oxygen developers developers expressed them self releasing it with a Free license, so don't ocme here and say "I didn't mean that" because is bs.
correcting spell.
It is your right if I express that I want to be called like that, just like Oxygen artists expressed them selves releasing it with a Free license, so don't come here and say "I didn't mean that" because is bs.
Thanks for the post Aaron. I obviously gave my thoughts in my blog entry that was cited by Linux.com. To me it's a question of courtesy and etiquette.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, I feel that many of the comments in my blog were written by people that didn't take any time to actually digest my stance.
Also, I'm hesitant to agree with the article in stating "Artwork is no different from executable code in either regard" without further consideration.
Another blog summary: http://prokoudine.info/blog/?p=64
One thing I didn't understand yet from that article:
The author moans that the Oxygen development is not open enough by asking nicely to wait for repackaging the theme after it was released first with KDE 4.0. On the other hand he writes: "When you choose to place your work on a publicly accessible server, and when you decide to place it under a free software license, you give up the right to control what other people do with it."
So he says that Oxygen shouldn't be public at all to prevent repackaging. But isn't closed development worse than respecting a wish from the developers? This would make it even 'more impossible' for 'outsiders' to help in the development process.
There is also a huge difference between the Gimp and the Oxygen situations: the maturity of the project. Gimp is mature while Oxygen was not released yet.
When a project is still very young, it cannot be totally open, as it can be forked too easily, destroying the original goals, the identity and the developers motivation. When Qt was first released, it was only proprietary, then moved from the QPL to the GPLV2, and finally embraced all platforms.
The same thing happens all the time: small projects developed on private repositories, are released when prototypes are working, and then get support from the environment (users reporting bugs, and developers joining the project).
Oxygen was advertised perhaps too early, or perhaps KDE4 is lasting too much to come. I think it is a symptom of its success, and certainly not a development issue.
It is absurd to argue that the artist, by depriving himself most of the legal rights of control also forfeits the right to express some wish about the use of his creation.
In fact, the artist's abrogation of these rights means that appropriate use shouldn't be judged through the prism of "whatever the law allows", but rather "whatever is best for society" (this being the presumed rationale motivating the artist's generous release).
Abuse of the artist's wishes is likely to lead to 1) a less open development process; 2) A more restrictive license during the development process; 3) Fewer artists contributing to these projects.
So if someone is interested in preventing any of the above 3 scenarios it is in their interest not to exercise all of their rights.
>>Because of the freedom of speech, someone can call me an ass for no reason. But I doubt I would think nicely of that person, and I think most people nearby would consider that person extremely rude.
I think that comment summed it up nicely. I could walk up to a guy I never met and call him a dick. And my buddy next to me could argue that I'm within my "rights." I shouldn't be so surprised, however, if he calls me names in return, or if his friends jump in an tell me I'm the dick. Exercising your "rights" may not always be the right thing to do.
The Oxygen team has been _very_ open in taking and implementing suggestions, and I'm sure they'd appreciate and consider artwork submissions (provided they met the design standards). It saddens me to see so many people bitching that the team asks that people don't take the work and try to steal their thunder. If they would have kept the whole thing behind closed doors the whole time, the same assmunches would have been crying that the process wasn't open. It's a no-win.
I think it breaks down like this. There are those who are short sited and there are those who are long sited.
The short sited ones just look as far as "I know you would like XYZ with respect to your work, but I want UVW, and I'm legally allowed to, so screw your XYZ." The long sited ones go further and realize it is not just an issue of XYZ versus UVW now. These things have implications with respect to the future.
So, sure, the authors have been over permissive in the legal rights they have given out with respect to their wishes, however, abusing this will only encourage them to be under permissive next time. The smart person realizes this is not in their (or anyone's) best interests, and acts accordingly.
If you've ever worked trying to get hardware specs out of a vendor, you would realize just how less friendly and efficient the world is when everyone defaults to being non-permissive and playing their cards close to their chest.
Ok, i understand little that yelling about XY not being so "Open". But same time i think it still miss the shot from target.
I think David would allow users to use few icons from project on somewhere else, like their webpages or own applications (so long as license is respected). But i see problem there too that there are so many waiting users that they are now ready to grab icons and make that as "KDE4 Oxygen" iconpack and share it.
Yes, they can do that but same time they just distribute not *polished/finished* iconPACK what will be big part on KDE4.
Users who get's these icons, use them and notice missing icons or quality is bad, and they think first that Oxygen team has done bad job.
Sametime users who use it on KDE 3.5x, wont get same "wow" feel when they first time open final KDE4.
That project is open for testers, i dont think that David would disagree that individuals would get that pack to test, but that one takes it, packages it and "sell" as final.
I saw once in start that one guy was offering this Oxygen iconpack on kde-look.org. He took it away day later, not because he would not be allowed it. But because he wanted to give artists time to finalize their job. (dont know if david has asked ;-)) And i think it's good that someone still respect original artist, we are here together after all, even you would have rights to use those icons.
On Gimp thing, i disagree again. I dont see any reason to have own account there. You can still send there new ideas. Yes, send them via email to devel's. They will put them to that page if they see it is allowed to be under CC. If not sure, they ask from sender.
I made few mockups there and i used on another Apples wallpapers (didnt have anything else on that machine) as pictures open in gimp, not used them as part of my mockup. Still, they contacted that it's on gray area, and i need to make new mockup without them and then they can post it. I agree that it was gray area and i made new with own pictures. And it got published.
If all could make account there and post their own pictures, it would be more difficult to control how it happends. If admin removes picture from blog for reason, other can repost it.
And again and again and again, even if account would be removed user could make new account. Now, everyone just send email and everyone are happy.
And whole project is under CC and not under LGPL/GPL so you just show your art for everyone, there is no porn spam because someone thinks it's funny on anything. It's still open for everyone. But not everyone can be admin or own account on that page.
If it would be closed, only few guys could send mockups there and only few of those would be published. Now everyone can send there mockups, no matter are you photoshop or gimp user, man or woman, black or white, young or old...
I see Nathan point of view, but i just dont see this big holabaloo from it. Users has their rights, but so have artists to do something what they prefer calling "final" and "art".
They want users to give opinion from their job so they can change something if needed to get pack polished and they want allow users to use few of those art for somewhere else if user sees it fits.
If i now would go and take KDE4 sources and make it as deb for ubuntu and start yelling on ubuntu forums that KDE4 has come out, i dont think that KDE developers and users would be nice to me after that, but if i stamp there "beta4", there is no problem ;-)
But sametime if i still publish those icons as pack, i just might ruin others waiting time in that second, i dont wanna do that.
I want wait final iconset, that's why i wait until they get it done. Even i could now go and grab them and start using on KDE 3.5.x. I wait KDE4 and if i like iconset, i use it. And if i like it much, i would like to see them on kde 3.5.x series too if possible (different icon naming) if i cant use kde4 on those PC's for some reason.
And i think i have done my job to help them by taking part of survay where they asked what icon fits for what reason best... I think it's my duty to help them if i use their art for free ;-)
I totally agree with you Aaron. The guy that snitched the oxygen icons, in a real world sense cut to the front of the line before everyone else that were diligently waiting. The GPL and CC licenses promote positive values in society but it can't/won't police everyone. Those above that crow "but its FOSS!" obviously have missed the point entirely of FOSS software becuse they have no respect or consideration for the hard work and sincere awesomeness developers put into these projects. Nathan Willis et al should take a seat in the corner and wait or start contributing. They obviously can't appreciate how someone feels when some smart alec dweeb thinks hes helping by stealing all the good work while also mashing his impression of how it should be all over it and then signing off on said "masterpiece" before the original creator is even done *coug!*compiz/beryl!*cough!*. You tell them how it is Aaron!
Totally agree!
Wade made a good comparison with a birthday surprise party. People ask you to keep it quiet. However, nothing stops you legally from telling everyone about it since you didn't sign an NDA. Technically, you're allowed to spoil the surprise. That doesn't make you a nice person though.
Oxygen is like the "birthday surprise". A selective group knows about it. When someone in that group creates Windows-iconpacks based on Oxygen it's like spoiling the birthday surprise. It makes Oxygen look like some Vista-iconpack ripoff, instead of the cool next thing from KDE.
And that's something no one wants to see happening.
Like a few others here, I have to disagree. To release any content under open source implies the expectation that others are going to download, play, and fiddle with your work. That's the difference between simply "free" and "open source". Think about it for a second: the exact same argument you're making can be applied to any developer that takes a version of your code (or artwork) and branches in a development path you don't like. Preventing a developer from interfering with the development of a new project because they disagree with the quality, style, or approach that has been applied to their base work is exactly why open source exists. I can develop what I want off of your code, and you can develop what you want off of my code. If you're developing for KDE and I use GNOME, I can branch to GNOME. Saying that you "can, but shouldn't" violates everything that Open Source is about, which is you "can, and should, and have fun while you're at it". Keeping it under wraps may be better for the individual project, but having two developers branch for two different purposes, that makes a stronger community.
I think that the main problem here is an artist wanting recognition for his work, and particularly not wanting the spread of a mix of his work with other icons of lesser quality. What he wants is his work to be respected, and not mistaken for the other low-quality icons found in the hybrid package. He doesn't want to have people saying : look how awful those icons look! So he wanted people to wait until he had finished his own packaging, so this would become the mainstream packaging and would'nt be confused with some hybrids of lesser quality. The correct answer would be to either develop a specific Artistic license which would forbid the use of "in progress" work, which would be contrary to the ordinary philosophy of GNU things, but which could make sense when applied to artists, I guess
The fact that people get pissy when someone doesn't do what they ask, yet they willingly set themselves up for such an event to happen by creating something under a Free license, makes me giggle a little.
Yes, we may expect and hope for people to play nice with each other but how often does that happen. Everyone involved with this is an adult and was aware of the consequences of Free licensing when they created the icons.
Don't whine just because someone doesn't use your stuff the way you want it used after you tell them they can have total control of it as long as they do not profit.
I agree with Ramsees. The developers have the right, as they are the content creators, to not release what they make to a free and open license. They could, in fact, not release anything until they are ready, (or never at all). nobody and nothing forced them to release the not-ready-for-prime-time version under a free and open license. If they wanted control, if they wanted to lock it down, it was their choice, until they put that "you can use this" stamp on their. then, legally, morally, ethically, logically, and of their own free will, they gave up control of it. do they have the right to whine, sure, just don't expect sympathy when it was your choice to begin with. and you shouldn't be confused when people call you an idiot for it.
@andrew - the project expressed their wishes when they released it under an open license.
@anonymous the latter: "the exact same argument you're making can be applied to any developer that takes a version of your code (or artwork) and branches in a development path you don't like."
you're example is not relevant. once oxygen is ready to go, then yes. but the whole point is that there has been a polite request to hold off as it isn't ready yet.
maybe you need to look up the definition of "anti-social".
@Maël:
"I think that the main problem here is an artist wanting recognition for his work, and particularly not wanting the spread of a mix of his work with other icons of lesser quality."
it's actually not so much about personal recognition as product integrity and the ability to have it released with the whole product it is intended to be a part of first.
there's an attempt here to release something that's decently new and fresh with 4.0. that has a big impact on how something like this is received, and undermining that is counterproductive.
these actions truly undermine our efforts to build a creative community that extends beyond writing code.
that Nathan would then stick his nose into it like this only makes it worse. elevates it to pathetic and revolting.
"What he wants is his work to be respected,"
yes, as well as his pretty simple requests as a creative agent.
"correct answer would be to either develop a specific Artistic license which would forbid the use of "in progress" work, which would be contrary to the ordinary philosophy of GNU things, but which could make sense when applied to artists, I guess"
this is a non-starter for a project like kde, however. *if* we did do this, we'd get lambasted by people like Nathan for being closed, only this time they'd be right.
being stabbed in the back by people in the community is just so counter productive. either they don't care about free software really succeeding or their are too daft to realize the impact of their actions.
@Mogwai
"The fact that people get pissy when someone doesn't do what they ask, yet they willingly set themselves up for such an event to happen by creating something under a Free license, makes me giggle a little."
that it is deemed unrealistic for cooperation and support *within the same community* is what should make you giggle.
"Yes, we may expect and hope for people to play nice with each other but how often does that happen."
less often if nobody does or says anything. i hope that by people taking an ethics based stand on this issue that the next person who comes along thinking of doing something similar will think twice.
we affect the societies we live in through our words and actions. you may have given up (evidently), but i believe in the ability to create improvement in my communities.
"Everyone involved with this is an adult and was aware of the consequences of Free licensing when they created the icons."
likewise, the adults (perhaps) who took the icons and made them prematurely into icon packs for download should also realize the consequences of their actions: that they are stunting the future growth of the creative art community around free software.
*now* how do you feel about it?
"Don't whine"
woah. stop. right. there.
it isn't whining to voice disagreement over someone else's anti social behaviour.
your comment amounts to justification of silencing dissent. that, sir, is pathetic.
"just because someone doesn't use your stuff the way you want it used after you tell them they can have total control of it as long as they do not profit."
another bit of evidence of your lack of connect on this issue: it has nothing to do with profit. monetary gain, or lack thereof, is irrelevant in this story.
perhaps you need to sit back and rethink what you perceive is going on here.
@chad smith, and for that matter, @ramsees:
you would do yourselves both a favour by learning more about the mechanics of freedom in culture and society. don't just stop at "well, i am allowed by these boundaries to do these things" but continue on to "when i do this particular thing, these are the results to my freedom and the freedom of others around me".
iow, explore the full cycle and ramifications of our own actions.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." ~Thomas Paine
your stand on this undermines the future of a free culture by trying to create the situation where the only way to gain what one wants is to remove the freedom of others.
that is not the only option, but it requires people to do what Thomas Paine was speaking about above. he wrote a lot about freedom, as did many of the men from his era. good reading, and lots of great thoughts.
if you actually lend your support to people doing the Right Thing then perhaps we can have a community here where things can be open and not routinely abused.
is that understandable at all to you?
"you would do yourselves both a favour by learning more about the mechanics of freedom in culture and society. don't just stop at "well, i am allowed by these boundaries to do these things" but continue on to "when i do this particular thing,"
The "mechanics of freedom in culture and society." is reflected in the Free licence, this is why Free license are for, to express all yo wrote above.
You just need the license, nothing else, don't agree with it? don't release it under it.
The ethics you are talking about are just words and perfecly covered in the license, and honestly don't aply here.
Respect is something that a lot of people seem to be lacking, based on some of the comments to the article.
The idea of the FOSS community is grounded in this idea. FOSS contributors believe that only in open-source is the respect given that people have the option of changing the things they're given if they're capable and/or if they feel like it.
There is no respect shown when people take things that are disclaimed as unfinished product and use them in a separate product.
The idea of reputation is a big one in a virtual world, and if a group's reputation is tarnished because their product is associated with another, sub-par product, it can cause serious consequences.
These consequences can't be hashed out legally under FOSS licenses, AFAIK, but again: it's a matter of respect. If someone asks you not to use something because it's unfinished, it would behoove the person wanting to use that something until it is finished.
@aaron.
i worked with OpenOffice.org for over 3 years, gimpshop for over 2, and submitted bug reports, enhancement requests, and user support to numerous other projects, and still do. i have converted a number of people to open source software. i bought the domain name for openclipart.org the first year they were a project, and handed it over to them. i do know a little bit about how freedom works, and how open source projects work.
this isn't about freedom that is bought and paid for with the blood of soldiers on the battlefield - the comparison is quite pathetic and insulting to those who have died in buying your freedom - and those who are dying for it now. get over yourself, you are not the same kind of freedom fighter that Patrick Henry was or any other soldier. you're talking about damn icons for crying out loud. Please get over yourself.
The kind of freedom we're talking about is, I set up a table outside of Walmart, it has cookies on it, there is a sign, that i put there on purpose, that says '"FREE COOKIES, PLEASE HELP YOURSELF. TAKE SOME FOR YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY, TOO!" then some guy comes by before I've got all the cookies set out the way i want them, and he takes some, and he gives them out to other people, saying "hey, there's a guy out front giving away free cookies!"
now, a bunch of people show up wanting cookies, but i haven't gotten through unloading them yet.
guess what? it's not the guy's fault that there are people expecting free cookies standing in line around a disorderly table - it's mine. i put the sign up too early.
Even if i said,"Please don't tell people, yet, I'm not ready!" the guy still was only doing what i purposefully freely told him he could do.
The answer is easy, don't put the damn sign up until the cookies are ready.
Dude. Please use capitals at the beginning of sentences. Your insistence on capitalization of proper names created an inconsistency that took away from your article.
As I was reading, all I could think was, "Man, I can't take this person seriously when they are trying too hard to be cute, or cool", or whatever it is that you were shooting for with that ee cummings silliness.
if it's open, it's open. that means anyone can do whatever whenever, and all you get is to suck it.
lots of ppl seem clueless about what the 'open' in 'open source' means.
my shift key isn't working all the time.
I connect very well with this issue, thank you. I understand that people create things without a monetary goal in mind but depending on the license the software is distributed under, that is usually the only place where creative commons realm draws a line and that is the only reason I included that line in there. I understand money is not important in this argument.
If you don't like what people may do to your software, then do not make your software free for people to do with as they see fit.
I agree with you that the guy was acting socially inept by not heeding the wants of the icons' creators but at the same time, the software is under a free license and was made available to the public. Do you expect everyone to do what you tell them to do? How is that working out for you?
It is great that you want to enact positive change within your community but I find it a fairly lofty ideal that you expect everyone else to follow your lead.
People are still going to create things and I seriously doubt the misuse of an icon set is going to be the open source movement's undoing. I understand it is the principle that is important but principle's very seldom play into how most things in the real world turn out.
Bottom line: If someone expects control over their intellectual property, they should not release it into the world under a free license. I support open source and free licensing but I also understand that under that license people can pretty much do what they want.
@ramsees: "reflected in the Free licence, this is why Free license are for, to express all yo wrote above."
this is precisely why i wrote you need to educate yourself more. what you're saying is equivalent to "all we need is a constitution and written law. ethics plays no role in things, nor do we need a judiciary with the possibility of being judged by a jury of our peers."
@Chad Smith: i'm sorry all your experience in the community has left you with such a poor understanding of the mechanics of such a society.
"FREE COOKIES, PLEASE HELP YOURSELF."
completely off base. first off, we're talking about libre not gratis. secondly, what you're suggesting is a closed development cycle.
which is what Nathan was supposedly railing against.
it's amazing that you would actually suggest that the solution here is not social responsibility, but closed development.
moreover, we're not talking about people being upset that the icons aren't available, we're talking about someone packaging an unfinished product against the wishes of the people making it for them.
the word is "ungrateful".
now, to your ad hominem:
"this isn't about freedom that is bought and paid for with the blood of soldiers on the battlefield - the comparison is quite pathetic and insulting to those who have died in buying your freedom"
free software is part of the freedom of society, just as many other such social freedoms are. i do agree that my work is not like sacrificing my life on a battlefield, but the lessons we learn from those events and the people who struggled through them are applicable to all sorts of things in life.
i show my respect for what they did for all of us, in part, by learning from the lessons they bought with their lives. perhaps you could do the same.
until then, don't lecture me about disrespecting those who sacrificed in the past.
@anonymous-the-latter: "As I was reading, all I could think was,"
i figure i may as well give those with nothing better to complain about something, right? i'm ok with your dislike of my lack of capitals.
@jt: "if it's open, it's open. that means anyone can do whatever whenever, and all you get is to suck it."
hm. actually, no. there are rights reserved by many open licenses, the lgpl and gpl among them.
more over, open source works much more on social contract than legalities. the legalities are there to keep the least aware of society in line by force, but the social contracts are what keeps the creative flow going.
"lots of ppl seem clueless about what the 'open' in 'open source' means."
that's an astute observation. doubly so as you apparently would be included in that group. cheers for self awareness.
Was this GPL? If so then yes, you get no respect as a creator.
In the GPL, all the respect is meant to trickle downstream to the people that want to use your work. You cannot license something under the GPL but add your own clauses of "yeah, it's open but you can't have it yet because it's not finished."
Am I missing something here? Was this under a BSD license or something? If this was GPL'ed work than IMHO you are damaging the spirit of the GPL by adding your own restrictions as to who, how, or when people can use your work.
If they didn't re-license it, released "source" material along with it covering any changes made, etc then they have abided by the license and did nothing wrong.
If you wanted to restrict access to these icons then you should have chosen a different license. My only guess is that I'm misinterpreting something here and these icons were in fact NOT GPL licensed but if they were... shame on you for trying to derail the open source process.
"it's a matter of respecting the wishes of a project."
Irrelevant... open is open, period. You are not allowed to add your own clauses or conditions to GPL'ed work.
After thinking for a while I've concluded that this may be your fault mr. Seigo, as I remember you whined about the work of Novell on Compiz wasn't open, after you were called hypocryt for atacking Novell and condoning Qt and Oxygen. So, due pressure the Oxygen icons had to open, and now you are whining for its correct use and quiestioning the autority of the GPL license.
Wow, that is pure poetic justice.
"Irrelevant... open is open, period. You are not allowed to add your own clauses or conditions to GPL'ed work."
*And nobody did* - David simply *asked*, politely, not to distribute yet. Had he called up his lawyer and set him on the packagers, then you would have point.
@Daniel and anonymous-the-latter: you are both confusing legal licensing with social contracts and behaviour.
no one is trying to add clauses to any licnese. i'm simply observing that the behaviour was anti-social and that Nathan's description and following analysis of the matter was innacurate and flawed.
@Ramsees: your connect dots that don't connect. great theory, but doesn't reflect what actually happened nor does it reflect on the original issue here which you seem to have lost touch of (though i've come to expect that from your postings on my blog). if you forgot what that issue was, see the above paragraph.
kisses.
While we all appreciate your contributions to open source, you seem to be a little confused about the implications of working on an open source project. Let me clear that up:
1. Open doesn't mean "no respect" but it doesn't mean "respect" either.
2. Open doesn't mean "no responsibility" but it doesn't mean "responsibility" either.
When you post a project on the internet, just like everything else on the internet, you should not expect people to act at their best. Respect and responsibility would be great, but they are rare commodities online.
You should consider yourself lucky that another open source enthusiast used your work, even if it was prematurely, instead of a business profiting from early adoption of your work (which is also common). We can all understand why you want to release a finished, polished project, instead of a rough draft, but that is not the open source way. If that was your desire you should have kept the artwork copyrighted and added the GPL license only when it was finished to your satisfaction.
That said, great work and welcome to the open source projects learning curve!
-John W
"i'm simply observing that the behaviour was anti-social and that Nathan's description and following analysis of the matter was innacurate and flawed."
To actually strike up a dialog and/or chastise the person for following the spirit of open source over your own personal requests is I would say anti-socail in and of itself.
I'm sorry Aaron, but I think you need to take the blame on this yourself. You can't post something on the internet under the GPL license with an additional personal/social (or however you wish to define it) clause of saying "you can't use it yet" and then get mad at people who ignore that. If I leave my dinner on the floor and tell my dog "no", but the dog takes it anyway whose fault is that? The dog for wanting a treat or me for leaving my food on the floor? Seriously Aaron, who is to blame here.
Please understand that when I say "you" or "yourself" I refer to the people that released the icons to the wild under a license allowing free access, not you literally or personally.
@Jon W: thanks for the condescension. let me in repay you by clearing some things up:
"Open doesn't mean "no respect" but it doesn't mean "respect" either. "
i'm *very* aware of that. what i'm attempting to do, along with many others, is to add the concepts of social responsibility to our communities. if it open meant "respect" we wouldn't have to do this, and if open mean "no respect" we shouldn't bother.
debian, for example, has a social contract. isn't the openness and the licenses that make it that way enough? no. they needed to state social mores as well.
"you should not expect people to act at their best."
indeed i don't. i also don't sit by quietly when people encroach impolitely, doubly so when a writer decides to turn that impoliteness into a "see, they were victimized!".
for some reason, many of you commenting on this blog seem to equate expectations with not saying anything. how do you think expectations change? how do you think societies shift? how do you think anything happens of meaning and worth? people stand up, they think, they do.
"You should consider yourself lucky that another open source enthusiast used your work, even if it was prematurely,"
i think i actually covered that in the blog entry, as did David in his. so we all agree on this point, great.
"instead of a business profiting from early adoption of your work (which is also common)."
business or not matters nil.
"If that was your desire you should have kept the artwork copyrighted and added the GPL license only when it was finished to your satisfaction."
another "close it up!" suggestion. you people fascinate me. no, i'd rather strive for a better orchestrated community.
and one where people like Nathan don't hold up the anti-social as victims. let's not forget the original reason i wrote this blog entry, after all.
"That said, great work and welcome to the open source projects learning curve!"
welcome to the "how communities are built and preseved" learning curve, John.
@Danial:
"To actually strike up a dialog and/or chastise the person for following the spirit of open source over your own personal requests is I would say anti-socail in and of itself."
to disagree is anti-social? yeesh. didn't someone earlier declare *me* to be the fascist?
i'm not sure how you think conversations should take place, or if you feel that "what is published is media, and media can not be questioned" .. but yeah, this is so off baseline it's remarkable.
"I'm sorry Aaron, but I think you need to take the blame on this yourself. You can't post something on the internet under the GPL license with an additional personal/social (or however you wish to define it) clause of saying "you can't use it yet" and then get mad at people who ignore that."
actually, i got upset at Nathan for posing the person who performed the anti-social behaviour as the victim. that was my beef. if Nathan hadn't done that, i wouldn't've said much of anything. i still would've seen the behaviour as anti-social, because that's what it is.
just because you can, doesn't mean you should. some people don't understand the difference or just don't care and go on to perform anti-social acts. just because they are within their rights as defined by law and legal agreement does not make that person inoffensive or productive.
"If I leave my dinner on the floor and tell my dog "no", but the dog takes it anyway whose fault is that? The dog for wanting a treat or me for leaving my food on the floor?"
i suppose the difference between you and i is that i don't consider people who engage in this community, such as Nathan, to be on the level of dogs intellectually. you may wish to insult them like that, i prefer to work with the community as a group of thinking human beings with the ability to apply ethics and concepts of common good to actions.
"Seriously Aaron, who is to blame here."
i don't really do blame, to be honest. i do responsibility. Nathan came out and misrepresented someone as a victim and set up David and Wade as the source of the victimization. he went on to paint an entire project with that erroneous brush. Nathan should be held accountable for that, imho.
the person who decided to do as they wished with the icons regardless because it was within their legal rights should also be held socially accountable.
i don't want those sorts of people in my community. they are the source of things that erode community. as such, i will say something.
i realize this requires the time, patience (and ability?) to see big picture issues here and to be able to frame things in systems terms.
I think if you're honest with yourself you'll see that you are upset because you got p4wn3d.
I don't really buy into the language of 'anti-social behaviour' - this only pissed you off, and you reacted badly.
The lesson I'd take from this is that if you want to control your creations up to some point, then don't release under a license you're not happy to see taken advantage of.
This does remind of the NetBeans Matisse gui editor project - once that was release, someone ported it to a competitor (eclipse) within a couple of weeks, that must have also stung.
So, please don't take what has happened so personally, please also don't pay attention to people being disrepectful in your blog comments, but I don't see your right to be angry with what has happened, just very agitated.
@anonymous-the-latter: "because you got p4wn3d"
heh ... that's not particularly how i'd describe it. it's simply more a "wow, that was a stupid thing for that person to do." nobody was particularly taken here.
you've missed the focus of my ire, along with many of the above: Nathan's portrayal of the project as closed. noting that someone's behaviour is undesirable and even anti-social is not "closing a project". that libelous article is what cause me to become upset.
"that's why the entire post was addressed towards Nathan.
I don't really buy into the language of 'anti-social behaviour' - "
i do truly see it as such; understanding why would require an understanding of how functioning societies work, something i'm not sure many of the people commenting here have. i've commented on it at length, however, so try reading and comprehending it if you'd like.
"this only pissed you off,"
no, Nathan pissed me off. there's a difference.
"and you reacted badly."
i reacted badly? by writing a blog entry suggesting Nathan got it wrong and was out of line for what he wrote? that's actually pretty .. tame in my experience of "bad reactions".
"The lesson I'd take from this is that if you want to control your creations up to some point, then don't release under a license you're not happy to see taken advantage of."
again, you're missing the two points here:
a) Nathan was off base and out of line in his calling the Oxygen project closed, etc... that has nothing to do with the actual actions that took place. which is, really, the core of this problem.
b) i fully do expect people to take things and run. i also expect to be allowed to note that when that's done against the reasonable and well founded wishes of the source project, that's pretty dickish behaviour, and i'll call those people on it. yeah, accountability sucks. too bad i'm here to mete it out, hm?
iow, you evidently have no idea where i'm coming from on this issue. i've written very clearly about it, and it still evades you. i'm beginning to wonder why.
"This does remind of the NetBeans Matisse gui editor project - once that was release, someone ported it to a competitor (eclipse) within a couple of weeks, that must have also stung."
i have zero issues with people doing all sorts of awesome things with the oxygen artwork wherever they wish ... once it is ready for that. so this is a false analogy, but it does help me understand what you are mistaking my pov here for.
perhaps you missed the part where the artists were asking people to hold off until it was *ready* instead of butchering their work. while free to do so thanks to the kind licensing the artists chose, that's a really unfriendly thing to do.
"So, please don't take what has happened so personally,"
don't take someone calling a project i'm involved with as having a lack of openness, not getting how open development works, etc when that is completely untrue ... should not be taken 'personally'? hm. ok.
"please also don't pay attention to people being disrepectful in your blog comments,"
i'm not a rug for people to walk on. if you want to come here and be disrespectful, expect a retort.
"but I don't see your right to be angry with what has happened, just very agitated."
call it what you will (i honestly don't feel angry about anything here), but i do feel pretty strongly about it and i'll use the words needed to convey that.
i don't think i need you coaching me on my emotional response, though. instead, how about trying to actually understand the issue at hand? that might do everyone a favour because as people in our community begin to understand the idea of "cause, effect ... action, accountability" things will start to improve in this area. =)
"The Oxygen icon set was available under two licenses: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, or GNU LGPL. Both permit reuse by others. The icons themselves were available via public Subversion repository. There was no license violation or misappropriation, a fact that both Vignoni and Olson affirmed."
And yet they are all incensed, as are you, that someone used their artwork in a way that was expressly, by the artists, allowed.
You people are weird. What part of "if you don't want people to use your artwork, don't give permission and make it publicly available?"
i believe the above commmenter meant to add "don't you understand" to the end of that comment.
Release early, release often. That's a part of the FLOSS philosophy. So put away your tears and encourage everybody to release alpha/beta software. It sure WON'T harm your project because people know to appreciate your work - even if it's in at an unstable stage.m
Guys: It's just ICONS after all!
I really liked oxygen but now I tend to prefer tango or crystal clear.
Aseigo,
1) Are you sure this is a bad thing? the fact that someone repackaged the icons means that someone thinks they are good even in its current unfinished state. And they are receiving recognition.
2) The icons are already being distributed all over the place by the KDE project in the betas. So if KDE project distributes them, why is it bad that others do it to? If the artists are concerned about showing unfinished icons, then why are they distributing them with the betas at all?
3) The fact that the icons are getting so much exposure, and publicity can easily attract other artists that may wish to contribute. Same as distributing betas. From this point of view, the more the icons are distributed, the better. This is one of the biggest selling points of open sourcing your work after all.
4) If the issue is that the artists do not like to be judged by the quality of beta graphics, then assert the trademark, and make sure that if someone is to repackage the icons (which they have the right to under the license), they can not call it Oxygen. Or ask that he clarifies in the web site that they are based on betas.
5) The fact is that even with these icons circulating around, most people will not get to see them until kde 4.0 is out, so the whole argument is moot. Wether he distributes them or not is not going to make any significant difference.
The argument that pre-releases of oxygen icons are poor representations of the quality put into the project can be applied to software too. Following that logic, you should never release betas. Reading your blog, it is clear that you have received some pain from the pre-release status of kde betas, especially from plasma (which I think is awesome). It is understandable that releasing a beta and then hear people complain about it can be very discouraging. But there are clear advantages for releasing betas. One of the advantages is that the work in progress gets more exposure, and people report bugs that may slipped otherwise. The same thing applies to art work, the more exposure the icons get, the more feedback the artists are going to get.
BTW, I really like what I have seen in the oxygen icons. It would be great if they where repackaged in a KDE 3.x friendly format so I can try them out and give feedback (yes, even in the current pre-release state).
Thanks for the good work.
sheesh people, these are ICONS. Grow the hell up. If you really want to engage in a bitch-fight/flamewar/slagfest then at least argue about something important - like the CIA torturing people, or the Burmese dictatorship.
Icons were taken and used in an impolite manner. When asked, the person using them stopped. It is dealt with. Move on.
Free Software is about sharing, but it's also about evolution. To see what the community will do with any given thing.
If your project isn't ready to be seen by the world, don't show it to the world. I think it is a fair thing to say "Hey, we've worked a long time on this and want you to have it when it's ready."
I think it's an asinine thing to say the same thing after dropping your work in a public place.
"i suppose the difference between you and i is that i don't consider people who engage in this community, such as Nathan, to be on the level of dogs intellectually. you may wish to insult them like that, i prefer to work with the community as a group of thinking human beings with the ability to apply ethics and concepts of common good to actions."
Taking my metaphor literally in that sense is in pretty poor taste, you know full well what I was trying to say and the analogy is perfectly applicable. People in the KDE team released a bundle of icons under an open license (i.e. put their dinner on the floor) and someone (i.e. a dog interested in that dinner) took them and used them after you said "no".
You guys are reaping what you sowed here, that's the point I and others are trying to make. Taking that analogy literally only implies that you lack a proper, reasonable response to confront that fact head on.
There, I spelled it out for you. Now are you going to continue to imply that I'm insulting members of the open source community, or are you going to try and understand the other side of the matter here?
If you get pissed off at someone taking your GPL'ed works because of your personal problems regarding it and call them on it what do you expect them to do? Call it a closed project, I would... it's obviously not open if people are getting pissed that others are using it.
You can say "no" to that dog all you want, and you can beat that dog for eating your dinner but the fact is you left it on the floor for the dog to eat.
Let me spell that one out to, so you don't come back claiming I'm accusing you of cruelty to animals. When it comes down to it saying "no" doesn't amount to anything if the license you use says "yes". People are getting conflicting messages by that back and forth attitude and of course their next logical claim is that it's a closed project... you told them they couldn't or weren't allowed or whatever. If you didn't want anyone to use it you should not have released it under GPL in the first place.
at what point should one hold up ones hands and say "I admit it, I was wrong"?
Wow. I just finished scanning all of those comments. It's amazing how people can argue at length while continually trying to misunderstand the other party. I know it's nearly impossible to conciliate in web discussions, but i'll try it anyway.
To ramsees and Daniel, consider stepping back for a second and taking a deep breath. I don't want to insult you, by no means. It's just that it seems you got a bit absorbed with discussing.
As for my point of view:
Our whole beloved community is based on interpersonal behaviour. It's all about people! Remember the poster we had on the planet? People oriented programming? It's not about rights or legislation, it's about people! What they do and what they think, and how to treat each other. Try to relate to the situation of the oxygen team, and you will see that it's understandable to be crestfallen in that situation! Just don't take it as offensive, it's pure disappointment. This is something we should avoid by the way, because it kills the motivation to work voluntarily.
So while your of course free to call them partially to blame, you should perhaps think about their intentions, and what drives them to work on their projects. This is what I understand to be aaron's point as well, and while he is talking on that personal / mental layer, you are talking about how the world should be in a perfectly logical world. The example of the dogfood reminds me of the very famous example of the unlocked car left in front of your house, ideally with the key still inside. Would you drive away with my car if you found it like that?
Additionally, you have to remember that aaron is (probably unvoluntarily) regarded as kde's public spokesperson, is somehow held responsible by the public for decisions and actions taken, and tries to keep the community healthly entertained and motivated, while still working as a programmer at the same time. So on a more personal note, please think about who you accuse. I really don't want him to loose his drive because of being gutted by mankind.
"Would you drive away with my car if you found it like that?"
Wow, are you saying using GPL'ed products is theft? I think you are.
There's a big part of your analogy that's missing Andre, the part where you tape the title of the car to the window along with a sign that says "take it, its free". That's what you are doing when you license something under the GPL. It may be disappointing to find your car gone the next day but you taped the title and sign to the window, you shouldn't be all that surprised to find it gone in the morning, and you certainly shouldn't call the person up the next day and bitch at them for it.
Quick follow up on that car analogy because I think it's a good one...
You can tape another sign saying "wait, don't take this until I fix the radiator" but do you really think that will make a difference?
That's the whole point of open source. It lets you take it and fix the radiator yourself if you want to, or change the entire car as long as you tape the title to the window with a note saying "it's free, take it" when you're done with it.
You shouldn't impose your own personal conditions and clauses to this kind of thing, and you certainly shouldn't get upset with people who want to use your stuff, even if you'd rather they wait until it's complete. Sure it's disappointing but they licensed it that way, so they have to bear the consequences.
I'm not accusing anyone or getting hot under the collar here at all, I just think licensing something under the GPL but adding a verbal "please don't touch" clause on to it is silly. THAT is anti-social behavior, misleading, and frankly downright contradictory to the open source spirit.
Let them take it, by using the GPL they were lead to believe it was ok to do so. To call them anti-social in turn is just being a bit myopic in my opinion. You can't have it both ways, either it's legally free to use in the end or it isn't.
And yes, things should be straight forward and logical like that... sure it's not a perfect world, but it's people putting out these contradictory messages that make it a convoluted place. Take your position and stand by it for goodness sake. Don't give it away with one hand and spank the person who takes it with the other. That sounds like what's going on here in it's wrong on many levels.
By the way Aaron, I would like to add that I have heard you interviewed (I believe on lugradio). I have nothing but respect for you and the KDE team and all of the related work and effort you guys put out. I don't want you or anyone here to take this personally.
I say this because some folks may be looking at my posts as personal or aggressive. Please understand that they are not. While I admire and respect the KDE team, this just happens to be a situation that I disagree with. I mean no hard feeling or personal insult here... I'm just trying to drive what I feel (of course, being biased) is a valid viewpoint on the matter.
Keep up the good work, and don't take what I'm saying personally.
Good job Aaron! I entirely agree. After all, "what's right" was the whole reason the FOSS movement started in the first place (apart from "what make the best code")
;)
@Daniel: i'm certainly not taking it personally and do see it as a free exchange of concepts. people not agreeing is natural, people trying to get each other to see their POV is similar.
thanks for engaging, even if we do have very different ideas on this issue.
i'm sure you and i both have things to think about from the conversations here.
You can't complain about someone releasing something that's open.
With that in mind, the best solution is the age old adage - release early, release often.
Stick up some repositories with weekly/monthly/whatever Oxygen builds and you'll make everyone happy.
Job done, no stupid blog wars.
You can't have it both ways - release it under GPL/LGPL/BSD.. and then prohibit early releases. What if Linus turned around tomorrow and say - do not use nightly builds of Linux or release a build from experimental branches as it is ugly!!! If you release it, the vendor assumes responsibility.
There is no reason for the person releasing the theme to even ask the Oxygen team. As per the license, he should have gone ahead and released it.
As far as the early release giving a bad impression on the early project, that is a 'feature' of open source - Not a 'bug'.
@Chris: "Stick up some repositories with weekly/monthly/whatever Oxygen builds and you'll make everyone happy."
well, that's just it: it isn't complete yet. releasing when you're not ready to release doesn't somehow fix things, in fact that's why the Oxygen team was disappointed with this.
artwork is not quite the same as source code.
@kc: "then prohibit early releases"
nobody said we could or wanted to. it was the ignoring of a simple request to hold off for a bit until things got more final that was ignored, and that's a bit rude. obviously it can't be prohibited and nobody was under such a delusion. doesn't make it not rude.
worse was when Nathan then turns around and writes his shlock about how someone saying it wasn't very nice to do so means the project is closed. wtf?!
"As per the license, he should have gone ahead and released it."
as i've said a few times now, you people *really* need to go get an education on being a good citizen of a community rather than slavish rule abiders.
this is not about legality, it's about good citizenship (which is on the other side of the coin from anti-social behaviour). it really doesn't take much to go, "ah, it's not ready yet and you'd like to have things complete. it's coming out in december? ok, i can wait until then ..." to make the packages for whatever system.
it's really not rocket science, it just takes a bit of empathy and a conscience. i think most people here have the latter (hopefully =), but seem to really lack the former.
i'm also unimpressed that none of you "by the law"-ers haven't noticed yet that Nathan committed libel and said something about the incorrectness of that. *smirk*
You can't use a license whose whole purpose is for others to take something and run with it and then expect that *everyone* will cooperate with a request. It's like you may not like forking, but you are dreaming if you think your wish will be respected by everybody.
In short, if you don't want distribution at a particular stage, add that to the licensing conditions. Eg, say that this becomes the GPL after XX date, but for now it is simple copyright except that you encourage/allow people to contribute back derivative works specifically to your project website. Clarify that the reason is to keep people from legally spreading an incomplete product that you think would affect the project negatively.
Alternatively, get over it. Think about where Linux is today and where it might (not) be if Linus had decided to add such restrictions so as not to make a bad impression on his project. Surely Linus waited a bit to present an acceptable alpha. Maybe Linus had the advantage of considering himself an amateur, downplaying the project, and was willing to wait years before it really took off. If this person is a pro trying to preserve a reputation this way, wants business soon, and/or isn't really seeking help in crafting the version 1.0 graphics, then see the prior paragraph.
If the problem is that developers don't want to have unfinished, beta-quality material associated with them, the right request would be "please don't call your derivative works Oxygen" or something to that effect. You could register a trademark for that, and people would have no problems with that. Instead, the devs prefer to whine that somebody actually does what they EXPRESSLY PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED them to do via your license. Which is IMHO stupid. Someone above brought up an analogy with calling somebody an ass to demonstrate the "can v. should" issue. The analogy was not complete however. Closer to the problem at hand would be a situation where a person would hold a poster stating "You are free to call me an ass, provided that... (T&Cs follow)" and then would be called an ass by other people strictly on these T&Cs.
Yes, I know what ethics is as opposed to legality. But I also believe that it is unethical to offer people something you don't actually mean to offer, and then bitch at those taking it from you.
Artem.
Reynaldo
What if you are on a party and there is table full with candies, cookies and lots of other things...it's completely legal to take as many as you want since that's why they are for. Although, you don't take them all (though, there is always one or more who does) because there is also other people wishing to try! That's anti-social behaviour.
Should we restrict the access to table or prohibit to take no more than 5 cookies??!!
And if i do that, then someone might say that the party sucked cause he/she wasn't allowed to take 6 cookies.
But we don't do that, we want people to taste and take the candies and cookies but we want them also to be responsible and correct!
I just want to add that I agree 100% with Nathan Willis and disagree with Aaron Seigo.
I don't think these early packagers did a single thing wrong, immoral, unethical, disrespectful, irresponsible, anti-social, or anything in between. In fact, the ones attacking these very people could well be described as all of the aforementioned.
What gives the developers the bad name is not early packagers, but rather the developers themselves going around complaining about them AFTER the fact, and also using words like "copied" in derogatory ways to describe their work. Open means open. If you want to show off your work ahead of time, all you need to do is make them available, fully copyrighted but do NOT open license them UNTIL they're ready. Otherwise, it just looks like sour grapes when something undesirable happens to them after the fact. I looked at the GPL and I looked at the Creative Commons license in question multiple times and for the life of me I could not find any reference to "respecting the original author's subjective version of 'responsibility'" anywhere in them. So if anything, these ominous, unwritten codes of conduct that are alluded to here are KDE DEVELOPERS' "rules", not FLOSS rules. So whenever you see a KDE DEVELOPER talk about open source and "our community", know that what they are really talking about is KDE DEVELOPERS' perception of those things, not the real thing.
Perhaps these people are part of the FLOSUSIRS movement I don't know about? The Free/Libre Open Source And Unwritten Subjective Interpretation of "Responsible" Software movement? Not too familiar with that one.
"FLOSUSIRS"
oh look, another person who goes through life not understanding that they are (a) a member of various communities and that (b) those communities function not on the letter of the law alone.
no wonder so many geeks have problems socializing.
thankfully it seems that, at least from what i've seen, the newer generations coming up around tech don't have this same general handicap. perhaps because technology is reaching a broader audience and getting a better representative sample of humanity, most of whom do actually get the whole empathy and understanding thing?
for those who are scratching their heads over this, ask yourself why so many non-geeks consider geeks socially awkward and even outright uncomfortable to be with. we're seeing it in spades here. =)
(to all the sociable geeks: i know you exist; in fact you make life bearable for me in this industry..)
I'm sorry Aaron, but your argument clashes with the principles of an open community along with open projects.
Unfortunately, your argument comes across as someone whining for recognition for his hard work, but is unable to get it, due to the open nature of his project.
Welcome to the real world. As an artist myself, I don't think this model can work for me - so in order for you to be happy with your project, you have to realize that by releasing your artwork into the open, it stops being your artwork, and starts belonging to the community. The same works for code with the developers as well.
It doesn't make a difference if releasing the artwork prematurely as a package 'brings down the credibility of that artwork' as you have implied. What this whole ordeal does reveal, however, is a flaw in your acceptance of the open nature of Oxygen and related projects.
One thing I don't understand, is that if by releasing your project under an open license that allows others to do things that you don't really want them to do, why are you using that license?
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire - you're obviously there for the wrong reason.
P.S. I've learnt today that I am antisocial, irresponsible and rude simply because I disagree with your blatant inability to accept the nature of an open project.
Thank you KDE community representatives!
P.P.S. I'm from this so-called newer generation.
"your argument comes across as someone whining for recognition for his hard work, but is unable to get it, due to the open nature of his project."
then you completely missed the point. not sure why it's so hard, but here it is in point form:
* it's not too much to respect someone's request to wait on packaging for public release a piece of work that is not close to ready for it
* Nathan horribly mischaracterized the situation
it has nothing to do with recognition.
(and btw, none of it is actually my artwork ;)
"is a flaw in your acceptance of the open nature of Oxygen and related projects."
really? it's a flaw to expect people such as Nathan not to libel a project? it's a flaw to be disappointed that people can't show a little cooperation along the way?
"One thing I don't understand, is that if by releasing your project under an open license that allows others to do things that you don't really want them to do, why are you using that license?"
i've explained this is detail several times. stop thinking legalistically for a moment and start thinking about what it means to successfully exist within a community built on sharing and trust.
"I've learnt today that I am antisocial, irresponsible and rude simply because I disagree with your blatant inability to accept the nature of an open project."
no, it's because you evidently can't separate the concepts of legal requirements and good citizenship, which includes not libeling others in your community and playing nicely with others. these are things beyond the legalistic lines drawn in the sand. by not being able to jump that gap in your mind, you display an anti-social and irresponsible attitude when it comes to being part of a community.
"Thank you KDE community representatives!"
psshft.
"I'm from this so-called newer generation."
i didn't say all of you were socially graced, just more. ;)
"oh look, another person who goes through life not understanding that they are..."
Again, Aaron Seigo goes on about his perception of what "community", "good citizenship" etc means and his distaste for others who do not share the same ideas. So anyone who does not agree with him must be...anti-social, now? Well, that's somewhat of a peculiar proposition to make, don't you think? Holding such a view - that those who disagree are anti-social - and expressing this view in such passive aggressive manner and lacking certain levels of empathy is perhaps even a bit awkward behavior? Some might even describe such behavior as hmm..anti-social, eh?
At least Aaron Seigo realizes and even acknowledges that his own idea of people's "place" in various communities in which he engages is actually a view not held by many people in the "industry" he talks about. If this is true, then one might even describe it as the "minority" view, hmm? I ask rhetorically: is a minority view in a community which attempts to describe said community ("responsibilities" etc) more likely to be the reality and the norm - or less likely?
Yet it's still obvious that for all the people described as "anti-social", who are really just those with different views and behaviors from the namecallers, these people actually do socialize in dissimilar ways. What makes the namecallers dissatisfied - even angry in some cases - is that those ways are not THEIR ways, and therefore, they as human beings are too different from THEM. Rather than continue a civilized human tradition of progress consisting of acknowledging and accepting our differences as a species, these namecallers set out on their own mission to establish "proper" norms that can be summed up in a slogan: Conform to our (even possibly minority) view.
To these namecallers: good luck with that. I hope you fail of course, as I'd rather see diversity in community rather than conformity, but I do at least acknowledge and accept your view and recognize that we all have different views of life, living, and even socializing. This is one area where there is no universal handbook nor guide nor any "right" answer - strength of belief notwithstanding.
This'll prolly get lost in the flame war, but I thought I'd add my vote in Aaron and David's favour: Open Source does not mean Open Slather.
Some contrarians (Raamses, et al) are so damned determined to advance their technically-correct agenda that they run roughshod over Aaron's most cogent and critical points... even after he moved to get the dialog back on track by succinctly reiterating them. That's pathological, guys. Are you just looking for ego boosts? Here's a challenge: try arguing the actual points instead of flinging feces at straw men. I dare you.
I find absolutely nothing wrong in this.
Aaron or David are not saying Oxygen should never be used in other places. They just asked not to use it atleast till they release.
Of course, there is nothing illegal in using it before KDE 4 is out, but it is not a fair thing.
KDE 4 is a milestone release for KDE. If its components are going to be used by others even before it is released in KDE itself, it will affect the freshness felt by users of KDE 4.
Post a Comment