Jakub Moc has repeatedly lied, put words in my mouth, grossly misinterpreted what I have said in the face of the truth. I cite dozens of examples below, and see no reason why I must suffer this behavior. I feel I have fulfilled my obligation to try and work things out with him by explaining to him multiple times that what he was saying was not true, but he persists in his falsehoods, so I must ask developer relations to put a stop to it. Samples of abusiveness and lies (I can repudiate the lies in detail if you wish): > Uh - like, WTF?!?!? Are you on crack? The copyright belongs to Gentoo > Foundation - perhaps you could bother yourself with basic facts before > posting an utter bullshit like this and before heavily insulting people > who did nothing else that fixing a trivial and highly annoying bug in an > ebuild - a bug which was ignored by the maintainer for months. Wrt the > maintainer reaction, as said on the bug - a crystal clear example of > pure hypocrisy so typical for the guy in question. ... > Perhaps choose a different license next time, noone violated your > copyright on any script or anything else in any way - because the whole > thing is GPL-2. Now go and take your copyright complaints to /dev/null, > enough ignorance you've shown here. ... > which clearly is this case... So, once again, go read the licenses > you've yourself used before accusing people of violating the law. This > can really make me sick. > > Abusive language? From me? You called a bunch of fellow-developers > asshats and accused them to violate your copyright without any merits, > and when people defend them, you call that 'abusive language'?! Must be > a strong stuff you are on ATM. > > Anyway, based on your behaviour, I strongly object to distributing/using > any splash themes having your name on in Gentoo and on our release > media. It's extremely poor taste what you've presented in the couple of > your posts here. > +1 - as said before; beyond the poor taste here, stuff where one of the > authors is threating other devs with a legal action (regardless the fact > that he's got no merit) because they've fixed bugs definitely should NOT > be something that out release media relies on and I don't see any point > in distributing such things in Gentoo. ... > Blackace napsal(a): > > Please to show me where I've threatened devs with legal action. As I > > thought I had stated previously, I do not find this worth legal action, > > this means I do not nor have ever considered pursuing legal action over > > it. I don't know how to break that down into simpler terms. "I'm not > > suing anyone", "I was making a point about the actions taken being > > inappropriate", "what are you on to be saying I'm on something and > > threatening to sue people over a script in a splash theme", etc.? > > Perhaps here? > > --- > Again, not sure what your point is here except to post a bug where an > asshat violated a third party's copyright on a component of a splash > theme by modifying an ebuild owned by the livecd herd, thus stepping on > a bunch of toes and in fact violating the law, and where several other > asshats yourself included posted comments containing drivel trying to > justify policy and copyright violations. > --- > > or here? > > --- > I maintain copyright on the script I > wrote which is what zzam used sed in the ebuild to modify, violating my > copyright. I didn't push the issue beyond getting on zzam for what he > did, because let's get real, it's a splash theme for pete's sake, hardly > worth even paying my attorney to send a letter. > --- > > Is the above enough?! Anyway, this is now Bug 198042, assigned to > trustees as the body that should deal with legal issues in Gentoo. > > > > I don't know what else I can say here, but that yet again, I'm up at two > > in the morning because someone decided to make gentoo really un-fun by > > doing their very best to chase away good developers that I look up to > > and learn from, all the while taking pot-shots at them with bugs that > > involved me, adding insult to injury. > > Riiigh, while your legal nonsense greatly added to the fun we are having > in Gentoo... :X ... All the comments from bug 198042: Wrt Bug 177626, we have been repeatedly accused by blackace (relevant parts of the posts on -core under [1] [2]) of copyright violation - which has been allegedly caused simply by committing a trivial bugfix to the ebuild in question (see the above bug). Regardless of the fact that the ebuild is GPL-2 licensed, with copyright owned by Gentoo Foundations, and regardless of the fact that the script itself is licensed under Artistic license, which explicitely permits such fixes in Article 2 (see [3]) I strongly feel that: - our release media should NOT ever again rely on packages where one of the authors is threatening other devs with a legal action and accusing fellow-developers of breach of copyright (regardless the fact that he's got no merit) just because they've fixed bugs in a package he's a co-author of. - we should NOT be distributing such things in Gentoo simply because it's not worth the potential legal trouble. [1] <snip> Again, not sure what your point is here except to post a bug where an asshat violated a third party's copyright on a component of a splash theme by modifying an ebuild owned by the livecd herd, thus stepping on a bunch of toes and in fact violating the law, and where several other asshats yourself included posted comments containing drivel trying to justify policy and copyright violations. </snip> [2] <snip> I maintain copyright on the script I wrote which is what zzam used sed in the ebuild to modify, violating my copyright. I didn't push the issue beyond getting on zzam for what he did, because let's get real, it's a splash theme for pete's sake, hardly worth even paying my attorney to send a letter. </snip> [3] <snip> 2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A Package modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version. </snip> ------- Comment #1 From blackace@gentoo.org 2007-11-04 11:17:43 0000 [reply] ------- To clarify, I don't believe I ever threatened legal action, rather I have stated several times I don't intend to. Further, jakub has pointed out clauses of the OSI certified Artistic license which do allow bug fixes, but the Artistic license does provide that the author be allowed to include modifications in the standard package, which leads me to the only real beef I've had with bug 177626, which is that no one ever let me know about it, I had to learn of it randomly on irc one day because I happened to be watching #gentoo-dev for something else. If jakub wants to blow this out of proportion and he must because he is, then by all means remove all the themes. And let me know if I should save you the trouble of ever having to deal with anything like this again and just not do any more of them. (Un-restricting this bug since it doesn't merit being developers only...jakub should be all about open anyway, right?) ------- Comment #2 From Jakub Moc 2007-11-04 11:24:08 0000 [reply] ------- (In reply to comment #1) > (Un-restricting this bug since it doesn't merit being developers only...jakub > should be all about open anyway, right?) The bug was restricted intentionally because in contains quotes from -core ML. ------- Comment #3 From blackace@gentoo.org 2007-11-04 11:28:41 0000 [reply] ------- I don't see anything particularly sensitive, but you're right in principle. Re-restricting. ------- Comment #4 From Chris Gianelloni 2007-11-04 17:50:00 0000 [reply] ------- Well, I am removing the restriction. I'm also closing this bug. It's ludicrous. Jakub, if you're unable to deal with your personal problems on your own, that is one thing, but trying to attack packages in the tree based on your personal disagreements with the upstream maintainer is not going to be allowed or entertained. Resolve your issues on your own time and leave the rest of Gentoo out of it. If you're unable to resolve your issues, you're welcome to leave. This package is no different from countless others in the tree. ------- Comment #5 From Jakub Moc 2007-11-04 18:27:16 0000 [reply] ------- (In reply to comment #4) > trying to attack packages in the tree based on your > personal disagreements with the upstream maintainer is not going to be allowed > or entertained. Resolve your issues on your own time and leave the rest of > Gentoo out of it. If you're unable to resolve your issues, you're welcome to > leave. This package is no different from countless others in the tree. Erm, unlike with other packages in the tree, developers are being attacked by upstream for alleged copyright violations with this one, and there's no guarantee that it's not gonna happen again; the licensing issue is in no way resolved. This bug and related legal issues are for Gentoo trustees as a whole to resolve in one way or the other, (i.e., getting the scripts relicensed or dropping this package), not for you to decide.
This is really funny... So, lets have more pasting here: <snip> Again, not sure what your point is here except to post a bug where an asshat violated a third party's copyright on a component of a splash theme by modifying an ebuild owned by the livecd herd, thus stepping on a bunch of toes and in fact violating the law, and where several other asshats yourself included posted comments containing drivel trying to justify policy and copyright violations. </snip> <snip> I maintain copyright on the script I wrote which is what zzam used sed in the ebuild to modify, violating my copyright. </snip> So, no, I haven't misinterpreted anything, and you are maliciously abusing devrel to cover up your legal bullshit. As such, I don't feel there's no need to explain anything here. You've threatened fellow-developers, not me. You've pulled out legal claim that completely lack merit. You shouldn't abuse devrel as an excuse for you poor taste actions.
Unrestricting.
Restricting to developers --- as noted below, this does contain posts from -core and should NOT be open beyond the developer community. My mistake.
(In reply to comment #1) > So, no, I haven't misinterpreted anything, and you are maliciously abusing > devrel to cover up your legal bullshit. As such, I don't feel there's no need > to explain anything here. You've threatened fellow-developers, not me. You've > pulled out legal claim that completely lack merit. You shouldn't abuse devrel > as an excuse for you poor taste actions. Oh really, so _I'm_ lying now, because I say I didn't threaten legal action above? Well, I'm comfortable leaving it up to anyone who can read ENGLISH, because you apparently cannot or worse yet you refuse to. Above, all I stated was that a copyright was violated, now this is my belief and some of the things both you and dberkholz pointed out to me have shown me that there is room for interpretation regarding whether copyright was actually violated or not, regardless of that I have never threatened legal action, above or anywhere else. My primary issue on that bug was that no one told me there was a bug, which is not to be confused with the issue that this bug exists to deal with, which is the fact that you are spreading lies about what I've said, and you refuse to stop defaming me. As an exercise, let's count the lies just in the snippet from Jakub above: 1) Jakub hasn't misinterpreted anything. 2) I'm maliciously abusing devrel. 3) I'm trying to cover up my "legal bullshit". 4) Jakub doesn't need to explain himself. 5) I've threatened fellow developers. 6) I'm abusing devrel some more as an excuse for my poor taste. So by now Jakub is a spotless angel, I'm the devil, and I'm bending devrel over the table...did I get that right? I'd be interested to hear how others perceive this so far, because I certainly don't believe this to be the situation, but I've been wrong before.
I'd only have to repeat what's been said on -core ML. Your legal claims lack a merit. You've accused fellow-developers of breach of your copyright. You're continuing this line yet again, as Comment #4 shows. Chris is misusing his trustee position to cover up all of this as said on Bug 198042. And you go devrel me for lies and abusive behavior?! This must be a bad joke, right?
Nicholas, What are you looking for at this point? I'll contact you about it later if there is still something open here. If you wish to discuss it, feel free to get in touch with me first: please do not raise the heat on this bug again because bugzilla flame wars do not do anyone a service. If you have a specific issue with me or with jakub, please take it up in private.
Well, I'm not exactly sure what's the goal of this bug either... Nevertheless, if you feel that I've misrepresented your statements on -dev ML, I suppose that must be a misunderstanding and I sincerely regret if that's the case. I'd appreciate less heated debated about trivial bugfixes in future and honestly hope all licensing issues are (being) resolved with releng. Thanks.
Jakub has sent his last comment to -core as a public apology. He does not mention lying, because a lie would have to be an intentional misrepresentation. I do not believe that is the case here, jakub says not, and there would be no point at all in an intentional misrepresentation. I believe this satisfies blackace's request, and on that basis I am closing. Anyone who cares, please contact me personally before taking further action on this complaint. Thanks both to blackace and to jakub for their cooperation in this matter.
