Comment by groby_b
5 years ago
As the author says, that can be fixed with a relicensing.
Just because you're legally entitled to be a pain doesn't mean this leads to good things. If the source owner has a polite request, honoring that is usually the best course of action, independent of what the law says. (Ask people who thought image hotlinking was OK even against requests, and how goatse looked on their page)
"It's legal" doesn't mean that it's decent behavior.
> As the author says, that can be fixed with a relicensing.
But he cannot retroactively remove MIT license. Changing license will only affect newer versions afterwards.
> If the source owner has a polite request
If this is your definition of polite so be it. I think it's quite unfriendly. Asked for a valid reason he basically says "because I want it".
If he want's them to remove it even though they have the right to use it he should at least explain why (or not publish MIT in the first place). His only argument is that he will get support requests, but he could just ignore them...
He's complaining about a support burden, and near as I can tell, his repository has literally zero issues on his GitHub issue tracker as of this writing, so the corpus of nixos users who have submitted issues is exactly, well, zero.
I'm not exactly sure who's being a "pain" in this case outside of the potential future concern that someone might wrongly blame him for package failures via nixos which is packaging it as an upstream dependency of home-automation.
I think I'd be more concerned about the latter's users!
On the other hand, frenck started by saying "anyone can do X", followed by saying, "please don't do X", and then "Ok, I'll take my marbles home."