OBS just dropped a legal threat against Fedora Linux, and the drama is heating up! 🚨 What went wrong, and why is OBS calling Fedora’s package a “hostile fork”? Let’s take a deeper look at what’s going on.
Links:
- https://obsproject.com/
- https://fedoraproject.org/
- https://flatpak.org/
- https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39
- https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39#note_2344970813
- https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39#note_2347081516
- https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39#note_2354562186
- https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463
- https://gitlab.GNOME.org/GNOME/GNOME-software/-/issues/2754
- https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586
- https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/244
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:32 The story begins
03:00 Let’s go a bit deeper
03:27 Issue posted by OBS
04:30 Fedora’s discussion about priorities of Flatpaks
05:34 Alternative suggestions
06:14 Public discussions are great but can be a bit messy
08:02 Additional alternative
08:30 Debating the quality assertion
10:50 Fedora Flatpak label might help
11:20 The right to package downstream
13:53 Another example of Fedora Flatpak issues
15:38 More alternatives for priorities of packages
16:31 Verified Flathub does NOT mean officially maintained
16:59 OBS is officially maintained
17:35 This app is Verified but isn’t officially maintained
19:23 Just because you can…
21:59 Fedora Flatpaks exist for a few reasons, here there are
23:08 Seems to be issues with OBS’s Flatpak on Flathub too
24:48 That escalated quickly…
26:04 More questions that come from this
28:09 Why I use the RPM version of OBS on Fedora
28:41 Something else this topic highlights
Start the discussion at forum.tuxdigital.com