I suggest you observe netiquette and adhere to the LQ Rules.

Which begs the question, where does belittling a poster's effort to provide the basis for LDAP functionality (inclusion of PAM and rebuilding all the required packages, providing scripts to generate the necessary config files, etc) as nothing more than 'getting a screensaver to work' fall on the netiquette scale?

nobody (but you) said that.

I think it was more the "unless you really are stupid enough to believe" part of your post... Calling someone out does not require you to insult them. You can ask a question or make a statement free from insults.

Really?
Anyone should have been able to ascertain from looking at the link ivandi posted that it was a complete setup for a Slackware LDAP desktop. PAM was included for LDAP not for the screensaver. So why the comment about the screensaver? They didn't bother to look at it long enough to know what the purpose was? Or just to slight ivandi's effort?

Fair point, but I really don't see how anyone could think all that effort was for a screensaver. And that's what was implied by the two quotes I posted.

Congratulations! You guys made Yet Another Hard Working Developer To Close His Slackware-Based Projects! As usual, I would say...

http://www.bisdesign.ca/ivandi does not exists anymore! You are happy now?

Let's see the bright side: without people like you, there would not be OpenSuSE, or even RedHat, right now...

1 members found this post helpful.

Following this thread, you'd think some people in this forum interact like an old married couple. Simple sentences like "Could you pass me the salt, please?" or "How would you like your scrambled eggs?" turn into drama in no time. Go figure.

1 members found this post helpful.

Come on now, no one but the OP closed his project!

Every post but one prior to his closing of the site was supportive and positive:

Then when ponce politely asked a carefully framed and perfectly reasonable question, with supportive and positive comment, the OP responded with a somewhat irrational and abrasive comment and immediately closed the project link!

Every thing that has followed including the screensaver discussion came after the OP abruptly closed the links and failed to respond to the single reasonable question that had been asked.

In no way can it be said that the developer was made to close the project! The developer chose to not respond to interested users and unilaterally, and quite rudely, closed the link.

2 members found this post helpful.

Oh so those distributions serve to undermine transfer of licenses, belittling of the work of others, and ripping off the efforts of those who were original? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.

Darth, sorry if this sounds blunt, but that's about the worst statement possible from the path this thread has taken. Ivandi published work taken from others where he removed licenses and copyright notices. That is illegal and against every rule book out there. Ivandi got caught and technically he would have had to take the work down anyway on plagiarism problems and license violations, or he would have been reported to the site host or ISP who would have pulled it anyway.

Was the work intriguing? Yes.
Was it ground breaking? In some ways yes.
Was it legal to redistribute? No it was not.

He chose to run and yank his own work. That's his problem, not ours.

Besides if I'm not mistaken even LQ might have some rules, written or unwritten about upholding licenses. Unspawn might know more on that though.

It does.

I was just giving information based on post after mine that discuss about mate-screensaver. That's not really a problem from me since i had to use PAM before i found a better solution.

My concern was about the removal of the license and copyright from those scripts are used. I don't mind my msb scripts are being used, but please respect those coming from SBo.

In a most polite manner I can call the copyright clauses in the build scripts at SBO and at slackware.com unfair. Personally I call them ridiculous, disgusting, insane ... you name it. Maybe in the very early days they were sort of reasonable at slackware.com. But nowadays we have thousands of basically identical scripts with copyright claims from hundreds of "authors" who claim a copyright on "configure ; make ; make install". Even if I write a script from scratch I'll end up with exactly the same script. Maybe the only option I have is to write it in C. This is simply ridiculous. The real credit goes to software developers. So for years the first time I modified the script I used to leave only the disclaimer in capital letters, instead of logging my modifications. Claiming any credit for trivial modifications is ridiculous (but obviously feeds some egos). Putting your name above a script that can be modified by anyone w/o your knowledge and eventually do some harm is stupid.

SBO is a mess with some terribly outdated versions or some far too recent ones. And it tends to spam the system by some poorly written scripts when run as root. To do a parallel make I have to export MAKEFLAGS. But that could make some builds fail. So I did a lot of trivial modifications to basically all of the about 100 scripts changing versions options variables and so on. I also modified the about 30 slackware scripts to use pam and kerberos, fit in the chroot build and fixed some long abandoned parts. MATE packages are completely autotools compliant. The build order is shown on developers site. The build scripts are basically identical and trivial.

I had no intention to share the setup of my home workstation. It worked quite well for me so I thought someone may like it for his/her personal use. It wont happen again. I promise !!!


Cheers

5 members found this post helpful.

It doesn't matter if you have a similar script. It's the purpose of showing who authored the script, changed content from the original author, and then redistributed it. Patrick, Robby, and Eric can all create a similar script, but if they put their own copyrights on each, each version is their version, even if the content is the same. It's like a changelog.

As it was noted Ivandi, it's not about agreeing with licenses. I don't agree with GPLv2 and GPLv3 for various reasons, but I, myself, uphold the validity of those licenses, just as much as I uphold the MIT, BSD, and ISC licenses I use and prefer. Yes, SBo has some stuff that maybe could be better, but whether or not you agree or disagree is irrelevant. I have to uphold a license and honor it then same as Eric, ponce, kiki, Patrick, Robby, and everyone else does. We all do.

Looks like the OP does not see packaging as a real job