JackbyDev

Oh, that's weird, you'd think there'd be a way to tell whatever is on air to download a specific tag. Or like one that downloads the other indirectly. I haven't looked into pkgbuild or aur.

Having read a lot of the thread it sounds like that's sort of what's going on with the version on the AUR. Sounds like it is the old GPL v3 version and the dev doesn't wanna put the new CC BY-NC-ND version on the AUR themselves because they don't want to make an account there (understandable, not saying they should have to).

The whole situation is sort of sad, but ultimately devs working on free (as in money, I now -ND is not libre) software need to do what they need to do to remain sane. If it's a CC BY-NC-ND emulator without Linux support versus no emulator at all I think we'd all want the first.

I hope this thread can be an eye opener for folks to remember to treat volunteer devs with respect. (Not implying anyone here was part of the problem.)

I submitted a PR and bug report for something I was using recently to better help arch users install it in the future. I encourage other folks to do that. If you ever have trouble installing something, just submit a little PR with tweaks to the README that would've helped you. Oftentimes they'll accept them. It benefits everyone.

~11 months ago they relicensed from GPL 3 to CC BY-NC-ND.

It's not an open source license. Even CC warns against it because it isn't a free media license.

Make a fork that supports Linux as satire since the whole situation is so crazy.

Edit: The joke being you could argue it's fair use.

At one place I worked we couldn't use eclipse licensed things because the license mentioned indemnification or something. I don't really understand what that meant because I think some other licenses mentioned it too. Plus literally all of us used Eclipse IDE.

Good faith discussion.

Where? And don't tell me to look up or read again because I recounted the conversation as I understood it already and went over with you that you're not being clear, so if you're acting in good faith tell me where?

I did and I'm asking for clarification.

This was your explanation.

Well im talking about external interpretation of ones identity rather than one's intended expression, so you figure it out. Or don't.

I'm good faith, I assumed the best by saying this.

I'd say that's supportive of femme leaning enbies rather than transphobic towards trans women.

Rather than agree with me, you said this and refused to elaborate, going so far as to tell me to interpret as I like. When I only have two possible interpretations, one positive and one negative, I don't know what else you'd want me take away other than the negative.

There are other things it could be. Interperet as you like.

So I clarified, in good faith, it you meant the negative thing.

Wait, so you are being transphobic?

You were vague and refused to give any explanation. I thought it might be two things. When I asked if it was one of them, your response seems to heavily imply it wasn't that one, but refuse to give whatever third thing it might be.

That was one of the things you proposed. Im suggesting there are other potential meanings, that you did not propose. i will not be explaining what i do mean any farther than i have

So... What is it? Because you're saying that I am "not making an effort to understand" when I am in fact bending over backwards to give you benefit of the doubt and understand what you mean. You say communication has two sides and you're done trying to uphold mine when I am desperately seeking clarification on what you said but you just refuse to provide it.

I'm just about done with this fucking place and im done going out of my way to explain myself to people who arent making any effort to understand. Communication has two sides, i cannot hold up yours

What have I missed?

Criminal negligence.