09:09 <manuels> This is nice and what I always wanted to achieve but no license covers this

09:10 <manuels> I always only wanted to charge for packaging

09:10 <manuels> But if I open source it anybody could package it and everybody would just use homebrew or chocolatey

09:11 <manuels> That's the point where I faced a Foss shitstorm

09:13 <manuels> Thats why I made it proprietory with explicit permissions for official linuy distro packagers

09:13 <manuels> But that's not enough for the bigot license idiots

09:14 <manuels> Sorry if somebody take this as an offense but I am totally fed up with this discussion

09:16 <manuels> You can not imagine the implicitness ppl take for granted that I work for them for free

09:18 <manuels> And they refuse to package it because it's not a regular Foss license with the rationale that a packager has not time to read a license

09:18 <manuels> Which is fun because I work for years on my app

09:19 <MrCooper> sounds like FOSS is just not what you want, which is fine

09:53 <mupuf> manuels: in pratice, I doubt anyone else would package it for others, outside of homebrew. But indeed, this is a risk.

09:55 <mupuf> I guess the choice is: open source and a bigger userbase but with a chance someone may undermine your business model, or a custom license with a smaller userbase but you would be able to sue anyone who infringes on it.

09:55 <mupuf> Maybe the other solution is to follow Mozilla's lead? Trademark the name of your software, and prevent people from redistributing binaries named after the software.

09:56 <mupuf> Then you can have a clause for the trademark that it is automatically granted to open source operating system distributions

09:58 <mupuf> This way the source code can be any license you want, people who do not want to ask for the trademark and are not automatically covered can just rename it to whatever they want (like debian did), and that means your packages are gonna be the ones that people will generally find, not the third party ones

09:58 <mupuf> obviously, IANAL, but this may be something you would want to explore

10:00 <mupuf> but honestly, I would assume that documenting in a README that development of the software relies on paid-packages and donations, and while third party packages are not forbidden, they are unwelcomed. Social norm could take care of keeping your business model alive.

10:38 <[diablo]> Good morning #freedesktop , I hope you're all good and well.. guys, I'm looking for assistance with adcli ... does anyone know if there's a specific channel where I can get help on this please?

12:47 <DavidHeidelberg[m]> Marge seems to be unhappy, fails at the moment as it is assigned (previous marge run failed)

12:50 <__tim> there must've been an issue with the gitlab api endpoint, I've seen gstreamer's marge fail too, but it works again now

13:43 <DavidHeidelberg[m]> I see serious gitlab mental problem: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/jobs/33288178 aftifacts were generated and put into right place but not uploaded

13:44 <DavidHeidelberg[m]> additional run ‒ just fine: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/jobs/33290549