Created attachment 271299 [details] patch Creates software MIDI devices for H/W sound cards without MIDI support. virtual_midi: creates raw MIDI device backed to H/W sound card. It is tinny wrapper to send MIDI events to software synthesizer backend. Only FluidSynth based backend implemented. virtual_oss_sequencer: creates OSS sequencer device that emulate kernel sequencer and work with all available raw MIDI devices in system. It handles: timer, enum and panic commands, all other commans is send to MIDI devices.
> FreeBSD Foundation refuses to support this project. I don't see the point of this message. The FreeBSD Foundation is not responsible for the ports tree.
(In reply to Robert Clausecker from comment #1) This is part of license for this app.
(In reply to Ivan Rozhuk from comment #2) The BSD license has no such provision. Adding a rider that a certain text must be displayed makes the license no longer the BSD2CLAUSE license. As you are the upstream, I recommend you change the license such that displaying this message is not required.
Source code under BSD2, and additional requirements for distribution. What do you suggest to set in makefile? LICENSE_COMB=multi
(In reply to Ivan Rozhuk from comment #4) I recommend that we reject the port as long as the license has your rider.
Please reopen if you have chosen to remove the license rider.
As upstream, I will not change project license for source code and distribution. If you have objections to how it is described in makefile (LICENSE_***) - I can change it.
(In reply to Ivan Rozhuk from comment #7) The thing is, your license rider reads like an accusation against the FreeBSD Foundation. The ports tree is not your personal soap box and the foundation does not owe you funding for your project. It also smells a lot like drama and I don't want to be part of that. > As upstream, I will not change project license for source code and distribution. Ok, then my decision not to accept the port stays. I have looped in portmgr on the decision not to accept the port. If you think that this decision should be revised, please contact portmgr instead of reopening the bug report.
Then don't participate. Neither the port nor its license agreement violates any rules. Everything written there is simply a statement of fact: I requested funding and didn't receive it.
The port's content fully complies with its license. If you have any objections regarding the terms of the license, these should be discussed on the upstream resource, not here.
the ports tree is not about personal dispute, please follow the recommandations fuz@ is giving you.
I am not obliged to follow anyone's recommendations; if the project has rules that this port violates, please cite them. Please note that licensing issues should not be discussed here.
this is not a licensing issue you perfectly know it!
(In reply to Ivan Rozhuk from comment #12) Ports are accepted or rejected on discretion of the port committers. We are not obliged to add your port to the tree, even if the port follows all the rules outlined in Porter's Handbook. Please respect the decision I made. As for rules, you are at this point violating our code of conduct, in particular the rule > In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop. Looping in bugmeister@ to have this PR locked.
To not accept port - all peoples with commit bit must say no. Even peoples who will have it in future.
Stop closing the ticket; the fact that you dislike its content and my position is your personal problem. I can wait until a committer is found who is okay with it.
(In reply to Ivan Rozhuk from comment #16) bapt is portmgr. This is an administrative decision. Please stop already.
> bapt is portmgr. So what!? Under what rules are you closing the ticket?
(In reply to Ivan Rozhuk from comment #18) > Under what rules are you closing the ticket? Under the rule of “portmgr makes the rules.” Please stop already before this becomes a CoC violation.
https://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/policies/ > portmgr has the responsibility to establish guidelines and policies governing the rights and responsibilities of Ports Committers and maintainers, such as expected standards of maintainership, conditions under which maintainers may be overridden or removed, and other policies. I do not see any "guidelines and policies" that allow to close this. Speaking of the Code of Conduct, what you are doing is called harassment based on the fact that the person holds an opinion different from yours.
Ivan, I can assure you that there is absolutely no conceivable scenario in which you win this fight. If portmgr does not want your port in the tree in its current state then that is final. There is no higher authority. Even core will not override them in this matter. You, on the other hand, are on the verge of having your Bugzilla account disabled for abusive behavior. So please learn to pick your fights, and let this one go.
Is this a public project or a totalitarian sect where the leader is always right? If portmgr is unhappy with something, he can resign and stop hindering the project's development. A Bugzilla account costs nothing; it’s ridiculous.
FreeBSD is a collaborative project managed by its roughly 400 members. Our governance is fairly well documented both on our own website and in other places including Wikipedia, if you want to go look, but I can summarize it here: we have an elected core team, and several other appointed teams who manage various areas of the project and whose authority derives from that of the core team. One such team is portmgr who has final say on everything concerning the ports tree. You, on the other hand, while a regular contributor, are not a project member and have no authority whatsoever. You can make suggestions or requests and we may choose to follow your suggestions and accede to your requests, or not. In this case, everybody involved, including the highest authority in the matter, has decided to decline your contribution, and that is the end of it. Any further action on your part will only serve to escalate the conflict level until somebody loses patience and shows you the door. I am trying to get you to back down before this happens. Please let it go.
Specify exactly what (which rules) the content of this port violates, and let's leave it at that. Is it written anywhere that *portmgr* can unilaterally decide to reject ports that meet all formal requirements? That is exactly how totalitarian cults operate: the only rule is authority, and this entire discussion suggests that this is an authoritarian cult rather than a public project governed by rules. 1. Not a single link to or quote from the rules. 2. Threats and pressure: Code of Conduct, account blocking. 3. Mass bullying: several people ganging up on one person. I have been following the project for 17 years, and the same people are still in leadership positions, while very few newcomers join and stay. This tells me that the project has a toxic atmosphere.
(In reply to Ivan Rozhuk from comment #24) Ivan, you said, "Specify exactly what (which rules) the content of this port violates, and let's leave it at that." With only my port committer hat on: The Porter's Handbook says, "pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and operation on FreeBSD, and that is unique to the port in question." [0] I respect your wish to protest a funding decision, but pkg-message is not the right place to do so. It adds noise to a location intended for package installation and operational information, and the message is neither vital to the setup nor the operation of the port. [0] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#porting-message