[Rubygems-developers] the autotest scandal

John Barnette jbarnette at gmail.com
Wed Nov 17 13:01:58 EST 2010

On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Nick Quaranto wrote:
> 1) EULA as soon as possible that respects authors' intentions and the
> original licenses they were posted under. This isn't the first "you
> posted something like my gem name" we've had, and won't be the last.

Totally agree. I've started a discussion for this and looped in a bunch of Ruby Central:


> 2) A solid policy and process for resolving squabbles over gem names
> like this, be it voting or a general agreement among the maintainers
> *IN PUBLIC*. Luckily, grosser seems to be quite agreeable with what
> was proposed in that thread, it could have very easily not been that
> way.

Also agree. I'd really like to see an arbitration board as part of the TOS/EULA: See my comments in that discussion, based on suggestions raggi made a while ago.

> If this project isn't interested in respecting the OSS licenses we
> publish code under, I'm ready to step down. Let's work this out, for
> my sanity and for everyone else's too.

Slow your roll, player: Internet hyperbole is hyperbolic. This was ultimately a social issue, not a license issue, and I'm very glad it turned out the way it did. We'll get the currently ad-hoc nature of conflict resolution sorted as quickly as possible.

~ j.

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list