[ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Thu Sep 10 08:18:31 UTC 2015
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:23:15 +0200, Filipe Coelho wrote:
>Again, it's *optional*.
That's not the correct definition of an "optional dependency".
You can build without linuxsampler and then linuxsampler is neither an
optional nor a hard dependency. It is a build time option, to drop
features, but it's not intended by upstream to drop linuxsampler, it's
just provided to do it.
An optional dependency is a dependency that is add to the build and the
user decides, if this dependency will be installed or not. If you build
without it, then don't name it "optional dependency". You simply drop a
There is no sane reason to not provide linuxsampler. Assumed the
argument should be the customised GPL, then consider my arguments about
the kind of customisation and about the policy of other developers
who's software is provided.
To exclude linuxsampler from a distro regarding the customised GPL is
narrow minded interpretation of policies and licenses.
Let's have some fun with Godwin:
We must do it, it was the law!
What about good sense? Even laws of modern Western civilisations are
Ubuntu Studio can't be as flexible as a modern Western civilisation?
I posted the link to the linuxsampler license explanation. They fulfil
the GPL more than e.g. Fons does. I've got no problem with Fons will
and it's good that his software is included (I'm using it), but it's
despotism to exclude linuxsampler, since the customised GPL is closer
to the spirit of the GPL, then the GPL with pressure from Fons is. Linux
sampler is closer to the spirit of FLOSS, then support restriction from
Paul are, not to mention that he spread lies about other community
members, at least about me :D.
Do you apply double standards? The one-to-one words of the GPL count
more than to be closer to the original spirit? It does count more than
This is narrow minded, this is despotism.
What is your argument against including linuxsampler to the
repositories? Assumed it should be the customised GPL, than why do you
accept software of people who use the GPL word by word, but anyway have
a strange attitude?
More information about the ubuntu-studio-devel