Its important when you are accused of doing something wrong in open source to respond clearly and concisely. This is not a community that is a stranger to this type of exchange.
Ok, we are not open-source, but I'll do my best to be understood by everyone. So, here are some concise responses...
- You write lengthy articles that basically repeat the same thing over and over again: Haller is just attacking competing project and that you're very tired of talking about this.
- Never actually address the issue at hand (encrypted config files, unclear licensing, trademark law) and just say it's exclusively up to the publishers.
- Respond to accusations with counter-accusations and use colorful language "pathological, a smear campaign, an expected attack, shameful," etc.
1) Attacks of Haller basically repeats the same thing over and over. And he writes very long posts. We answered the same way. He does this for years, yes I'm tired of that.
2) The encrypting of config files is a choice. What is the problem exactly ? Anyway we started to provide uncrypted config files.. I don't understand why, but it seems that could be a good thing in this debate (the reason our side is that the format is more stable now, and users will soon be able to build LKS files). Concernig licenses and trademarks, yes, it's up to their owners to talk with us about that. This is what we are doing.
3) Haller doesn't know what he's talking about (or did he pirated our mail box?). So yes this is shameful. In those conditions, I consider words like "Piracy" and "Illegal" as a very "colorful language".. The repetitive aspect of his attacks makes me think about a pathological comportment. I hope it is not really the case, but after years of that, I am a bit angry ..
The Italian project managers of the competing WinPenPack project have in the past been forthcoming
and made a real effort to accommodate
problems with their work. If you'd like some examples of good community response, look to them.
You acknowledged that we have clearly made efforts to comply with GPL 2.0 requirements. Thank you for that. We also have made other changes that you missed concerning the use of trademarks (no more "Portable" added to the names).
We don't consider that we can do everything we want with the apps we selected. We always take care to be in compliance with the editors. We just add this precision: if we missed something, just tell us.
We have already been contacted by editors who wanted us to change some things to be in compliance. That can be done without lawyers, it is very easy to speak together.
For example, you can see in our catalog that TrueCrypt
has a particularity: the license is displayed before the download of the app, before installation, and before the download of the source code. This is a spécificity for this app and we have adapted the catalog to be in compliance. No need for threats to agree.
Sorry for this late reply, but I can't spend my time with this polemic..