[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: linux-audio-dev
Subject: [LAD] Misuse of linuxaudio.org consortium?
From: "rosea.grammostola" <rosea.grammostola () protonmail ! com>
Date: 2021-01-28 13:51:46
Message-ID: OIyzBhyKMYN1rZdiiFSW6WkQIgrqXJHsWOQLtHtHoCT9oWDEQc7syJlI9Iv5pybvVsD1RkZ0r2FbtDOp0H-jtZJMNXBw5Jb0i_1szNX4GFE= () protonmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
[Attachment #4 (text/plain)]
Hi LAD,
I would like to raise a issue I've with what I think is a misuse of the consortium linuxaudio.org.
As most of you know, the non-session-manager is forked a few months ago. This was not a fork in harmony \
with it's original developer and a part of the community, who worked on this project for more then 10 \
years and helped create a unique session environment where many users benefit from until today.
Again? Get over it I hear you say. The license gives them the freedom to fork!
I agree.
But I've personally serious issues with how this is organized and presented and one thing goes beyond my \
personal views I think.
Let's start with my personal view with saying that I don't like how they tried to replace \
non-session-manager by new-session-manager completely, in a for me 'Orwellian way'. This starts with the \
naming:
Overall name: non-session-manager -> new-session-manager (new?)
User interface: non-session-manager -> legacy-gui (legacy?)
Ok, now I hear you say: they're free to choose whatever name they want, even if it's bad taste (which is \
subjective anyway) or if you think it has a 'Orwellian smell'. Moreover, you did issue this already some \
time ago.
I agree.
But where it goes really wrong I think, is the way how the name of 'linuxaudio.org' is used in the same \
deceptive manner. They present the very questionable and debatable fork as if it was released by \
linuxaudio.org. They release their fork with statements like:
"Linuxaudio.org presents: New Session Manager Version x"
"Released under the Linuxaudio umbrella"
But since when does linuxaudio.org as consortium releases software? Or since when chooses linuxaudio.org \
as a consortium for a certain version of software? Since when does linuxaudio.org fork software from it's \
own LAD developers?
I think linuxaudio.org has always been neutral about this and it never was a task for the linuxaudio.org \
consortium to release software or worse, to fork software from community developers and presents it as \
the 'new' and 'replacement' even while the original developer and a part of the community disagrees. It \
probably never crossed someones mind to do it this way.
What has happened here, is in my view, a misuse of the name linuxaudio.org and people have misused their \
role as moderator and maintainer of linuxaudio.org and it's github page, to promote their own forked \
software version of a other LAD developer.
Linuxaudio.org should stay neutral here and it should be considered 'unwanted', 'unhealthy' and 'not \
allowed' for people to use the name linuxaudio.org and maybe even the software structure of the \
consortium to promote a fork of someone else his work (without consent by the original LAD developer).
The main developer of new-session-manager has his own place (laborejo.org) where he can puts his software \
and so also his fork. That's not the problem. But even if you place it on the linuxaudio github page for \
some reason, it's utterly wrong in my option, to present this fork as if it was released by the \
linuxaudio.org consortium.
Regards,
\r
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div>Hi LAD,<br></div><div><br></div><div>I would like to raise a issue I've with what I think is a \
misuse of the consortium linuxaudio.org. <br></div><div><br></div><div>As most of you know, the \
non-session-manager is forked a few months ago. This was not a fork in harmony with it's original \
developer and a part of the community, who worked on this project for more then 10 years and helped \
create a unique session environment where many users benefit from until \
today.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Again? Get over it I hear you say. The license gives them the freedom \
to fork! <br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But I've personally serious \
issues with how this is organized and presented and one thing goes beyond my personal views I \
think.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Let's start with my personal view with saying that I don't like how \
they tried to replace non-session-manager by new-session-manager completely, in a for me 'Orwellian way'. \
This starts with the naming:<br></div><div><br></div><div>Overall name: non-session-manager -> \
new-session-manager (new?)<br></div><div>User interface: non-session-manager -> legacy-gui \
(legacy?)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ok, now I hear you say: they're free to choose whatever name they \
want, even if it's bad taste (which is subjective anyway) or if you think it has a 'Orwellian smell'. \
Moreover, you did issue this already some time ago. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree. \
<br></div><div><br></div><div>But where it goes really wrong I think, is the way how the name of \
'linuxaudio.org' is used in the same deceptive manner. They present the very questionable and debatable \
fork as if it was released by linuxaudio.org. <br></div><div>They release their fork with statements \
like:<br></div><div><br></div><div>"Linuxaudio.org presents: New Session Manager Version \
x"<br></div><div><br></div><div>"Released under the Linuxaudio umbrella" \
<br></div><div><br></div><div>But since when does linuxaudio.org as consortium releases software? Or \
since when chooses linuxaudio.org as a consortium for a certain version of software? Since when does \
linuxaudio.org fork software from it's own LAD developers? <br></div><div><br></div><div>I think \
linuxaudio.org has always been neutral about this and it never was a task for the linuxaudio.org \
consortium to release software or worse, to fork software from community developers and presents it as \
the 'new' and 'replacement' even while the original developer and a part of the community disagrees. It \
probably never crossed someones mind to do it this way. <br></div><div><br></div><div>What has happened \
here, is in my view, a misuse of the name linuxaudio.org and people have misused their role as moderator \
and maintainer of linuxaudio.org and it's github page, to promote their own forked software version of a \
other LAD developer. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Linuxaudio.org should stay neutral here and it should \
be considered 'unwanted', 'unhealthy' and 'not allowed' for people to use the name linuxaudio.org and \
maybe even the software structure of the consortium to promote a fork of someone else his work (without \
consent by the original LAD developer).<br></div><div><br></div><div>The main developer of \
new-session-manager has his own place (laborejo.org) where he can puts his software and so also his fork. \
That's not the problem. But even if you place it on the linuxaudio github page for some reason, it's \
utterly wrong in my option, to present this fork as if it was released by the linuxaudio.org consortium. \
<br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,<br></div><div>\r<br></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic