[Kib]

Yeah, seems reasonable to me.

[Ned Scott]

The work done up until he relicensed is still GPL, so only changes from the last 6 days (aprox) are not open source.

If all this is handled correctly, then that would be within his right, but I hope to convince him to open source everything again. I still want him to submit his add-ons to the proposed "unofficial repo", but I would want open source would be a requirement for that. That is, after all, my main interest in this situation.

[robwebset]

I would not go that far (at this point of time). Yes, we cannot tolearte licence removers and history rewriters, as stated above. But I think Rob will use the time to make these changes undone and correct these things. We could perhaps say: Let's suspend talking about those forked addons until the obvious issues, the law issues, are solved?

Hi fritsch,

I believe you have a valid point - my mistake - when I removed from them from the official repo I was keen to prevent my addons being pulled into things like Super-repo or some of these crappy bundles that are put together from Kodi stuff. (I didn't believe that would be good for anyone)

I thought this was a way of doing it - but clearly I was wrong in that regard - in hindsight I don't think it would have actually stopped anyone pulling them in anyway!

For ease of understanding I have switched them all to GPL (with SoCo noted to MIT)

Hope this is OK.

Thanks
Rob

[fritsch]

Thanks very much, highly appreciated. For your code parts that is. Please be careful with the other 3rd party libs, they need to be the original licence again.

[swetoast]

Thank you Fritsch and Rob for giving diplomacy a chance and trying to resolve the issues.

[black_eagle]

Please lets end this once and for all.

Is Mutagen being used by anything in the 'Official Repo' Yes or No?

If No wouldn't it be better for all if it was just removed Yes or No?

If yes then this matter is settled end of!

If No, why not... and don't be making up senarios without anything to back it up...

I'm sure that everyone concerned would like this all to end now!

Ah well, just because nothing in the official repo uses that module doesn't mean necessarily that nothing uses it. For instance, my database cleaner add-on requires 'script.module.myconnpy' which it pulls in from the official repo. If that were to be removed, my add-on would break.

Now, according to the 'rules', my add-on can't ever be in the official repo because it connects directly to the users database. That's fine and I understand why that is the case. However, the only thing that module does is allow a direct connection to a MySQL database. With this in mind, I doubt that there are any add-ons in the official repo that use it (as the rules prevent them being added). Still, the module is present and my add-on depends on it.

Conclusion - It's not so clear cut that just because nothing in the official repo depends upon a module/script that it should be removed, because other third party add-ons might well depend upon such a module or script. This makes it pretty much impossible for the team to know whether or not removing a module or script will break any third-party add-ons.

Clearly, this isn't a good position for the team as it means all current repo scripts/modules need to be retained.

Options that I see -

1) Stay as we are. No modules/scripts are removed or updated.
2) Remove anything not referenced by at least one add-on in the official repo.
3) Take on a team-member (either current or new) to support/update the orphaned scripts/modules (orphaned means not referenced as a dependancy by any add-on in the official repo)

Option 1 changes nothing and I don't see that as progress.
Option 2 might break a lot of add-ons potentially. However, maintained add-ons will package what's missing in their add-ons to fix the issue. Un-maintained add-ons will stay broken, but this is not really any different to python version bumps or core related api bumps.
Option 3 is probably the best option if a team member is willing to take it on.

@rob - Sorry, I know this doesn't help your position but I can see both sides of this. FWIW, I think you have been treated harshly and I think the team as a whole could have communicated better with you. I also think that there have been occasions when you haven't helped yourself. I can't see how a module with a different name and add-on ID could conflict with anything but then I'm nowhere near an expert at this.

Is it not possible to find some common ground between the team and rob whereby his support threads can be hosted and his repo doesn't conflict with the official one (I don't think it does now anyway). ??

[robwebset]

@rob - Sorry, I know this doesn't help your position but I can see both sides of this.

Hi black_eagle,

No need for apologies, everyone does not have to agree on everything

In fact I think you make some good points - as it happens things were derailed again a while ago - there is no longer a module name conflict for mutagen so I don't really care a great deal what stays in the official repo.

Thanks
Rob

[robwebset]

Hi All,

As this thread has become a little derailed, I have raised 2 more threads to try and cover "what I see as the remaining topics for discussion"

Possible Forum Trashing Refinement

Current Status: robwebset repository

Please try and keep those threads clean and on topic. (I'm not surprised Nate hasn't returned to this thread - but maybe he'll take a look and comment on the cleaner, more focused ones?)

But please feel free to discuss anything you wish in this thread - I'm not proposing that we close it of kill all discussion.

Thanks
Rob

[nickr]

My tapatalk keeps telling me there are new posts to this thread, and I have been dreading reading it, thinking it'll be more angst and anger. I am pleasantly surprised to find the last couple of pages. The constructive discussion is a pleasure to see.

Just shows that people can disagree without being unpleasant.

That's all folks. (and this is not a post as a team member as such)

[Ned Scott]

Let's hope that can continue, but it seems we're back to dead silence again.

What's the hold up on this? Where's the announcement? Where's the rule clarification? What else are we waiting for?

[Pasado]

Let's hope that can continue, but it seems we're back to dead silence again.

What's the hold up on this? Where's the announcement? Where's the rule clarification? What else are we waiting for?

I think that it is a case of out of sight, out of mind! All Rob's posts have apparently gone quiet so I doubt that anything has been resolved and we're back to the silent treatment again.

[natethomas]

Locking this thread, since there are now two other ones that cover these issues, and the title sort of suggests that this thread should be about support for mutagen, which it isn't.

Possible Forum Trashing Refinement

Current Status: robwebset repository