Fedora Amicably Resolves Legal Threat From OBS Studio Over Downstream Flatpak (gamingonlinux.com) 5
When it comes to application packaging, earlier this month the site Its FOSS complained that Fedora Flatpaks "are often unmaintained or broken, leading to a poor experience for users who aren't usually aware they're using them." And this apparently created friction with OBS Studio, the free/open-source screencasting and streaming app.
"We are now considering the Fedora Flatpaks distribution of OBS Studio a hostile fork," OBS Studio lead Joel Bethke posted in on GitLab's page for Fedora Flatpaks. They said they were making "a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belonging to the OBS Project, from your distribution. Failure to comply may result in further legal action taken...." (Issues with Fedora's packaging led "to users complaining upstream thinking they are being served the official package..." Bethke said in his original Issue. "I would also like some sort of explanation on why someone thought it was a good idea to take a Flatpak that was working perfectly fine, break it, and publish it at a higher priority to our official builds.")
23 people clicked "Like" on the original Issue — but threatening legal action only happened after Bethke felt Fedora was unresponsive, according to It's FOSS: In a comment on a video by Brodi Robertson (check pinned comment), Joel shared that folks from Fedora were not taking this issue seriously, with one of them even resorting to name-calling by labeling the OBS Studio devs as being "terrible maintainers". Since then, a major step has been taken by Neal Gompa, a well-known Fedora contributor and member of the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo). He has opened a new issue to remove Fedora's OBS Studio flatpak from the registry as soon as possible.
But by Tuesday Bethke posted in a new comment on GitLab announcing that "a very good conversation" with the Flatpak SIG and Fedora Project Leader seemed to have cleared the tension. "We discussed the issues, how we got here, and what next steps are... [T]he OBS Project is no longer requesting a removal of IP or rebrand of the OBS Studio application provided by Fedora Flatpaks." To the issue of not knowing where to report bugs for the downstream package, "We had some very good discussion on how this might be accomplished in the medium-long term, but don't consider it a blocker at this point." As for other issues with Fedora's Flatpak for OBS Studio, "The discussion was positive and they are actively working to resolve..."
And similar sentiments were echoed on Fedora's own issue tracker. "We had a good conversation today, and there is a hopeful path forward that does not require the OBS Project distancing itself from Fedora Flatpaks..."
"We are now considering the Fedora Flatpaks distribution of OBS Studio a hostile fork," OBS Studio lead Joel Bethke posted in on GitLab's page for Fedora Flatpaks. They said they were making "a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belonging to the OBS Project, from your distribution. Failure to comply may result in further legal action taken...." (Issues with Fedora's packaging led "to users complaining upstream thinking they are being served the official package..." Bethke said in his original Issue. "I would also like some sort of explanation on why someone thought it was a good idea to take a Flatpak that was working perfectly fine, break it, and publish it at a higher priority to our official builds.")
23 people clicked "Like" on the original Issue — but threatening legal action only happened after Bethke felt Fedora was unresponsive, according to It's FOSS: In a comment on a video by Brodi Robertson (check pinned comment), Joel shared that folks from Fedora were not taking this issue seriously, with one of them even resorting to name-calling by labeling the OBS Studio devs as being "terrible maintainers". Since then, a major step has been taken by Neal Gompa, a well-known Fedora contributor and member of the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo). He has opened a new issue to remove Fedora's OBS Studio flatpak from the registry as soon as possible.
But by Tuesday Bethke posted in a new comment on GitLab announcing that "a very good conversation" with the Flatpak SIG and Fedora Project Leader seemed to have cleared the tension. "We discussed the issues, how we got here, and what next steps are... [T]he OBS Project is no longer requesting a removal of IP or rebrand of the OBS Studio application provided by Fedora Flatpaks." To the issue of not knowing where to report bugs for the downstream package, "We had some very good discussion on how this might be accomplished in the medium-long term, but don't consider it a blocker at this point." As for other issues with Fedora's Flatpak for OBS Studio, "The discussion was positive and they are actively working to resolve..."
And similar sentiments were echoed on Fedora's own issue tracker. "We had a good conversation today, and there is a hopeful path forward that does not require the OBS Project distancing itself from Fedora Flatpaks..."
Flatpak is less crappy of the crappy universals (Score:2)
Flatpak is the better of the universal unknown malware distribution systems, but it still isn't a normal simple package.
The science is generally solved in building rpm and .deb packages. They have a very nice 'Unoffiical Linux Builds' section on github with instructions for source build.
Re: (Score:1)
I love Linux (Score:3)
Person A - "Not being able to ship a single package binary that works on every dist sucks. I wish we could unify Linux distributions under a single package manager but that will never happen for a variety of reasons".
Person B - "I know, but maybe we can containerize applications so they're bundled with their dependencies and become dist agnostic. Then potentially we could release a single package that runs on all of them. We could ship complex tools, applications, games that run everywhere and eliminate this headache once and for all".
Distributions X, Y, and Z - "That's a brilliant idea, here is our mutually incompatible implementation that only we support. Oh and we'll completely half ass it so these products are never completely trustworthy or up to date."
flatpak and snap are missing many packages (Score:2)
I have been trying to use the Linux native package managers, but end up using homebrew even on Linux.
Example:
$ snap search lazydocker
No matching snaps for "lazydocker"
$ flatpak search lazydocker
No matches found
$ brew search lazydocker
==> Formulae
lazydocker