Authors versus Owners: Naming Rights

Feb 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Hi,

This really belongs on nuget.org, but since there is no way to contact the folks there I'm giving it a try on Codeplex.

I've been searching for a policy on the rights to use names on nuget.org - and hopefully a procedure for resolving disputes - but I don't find anything. Of course, if some of the same people are here, then this will work. Otherwise, I hope someone can give me a better contact to use.

The issue I'm facing is that there is somebody (name not known) who is viewed by nuget.org as the "owner" of the nunit package. The existence of this package prevents me from publishing one using the official nunit release. The existence of nuget (perhaps unavoidably) creates this problem, but no way is provided to resolve it.

Of course, I have already used the "message to owner" function on nuget.org to ask the owner to release the nunit name back to the nunit project, and I'm hoping that will have a positive outcome. But it still strikes me that there needs to be more than that.

Third party releases are better than no release at all, but they nevertheless present problems:

1. The author has no knowledge of how the release is created or what's in it. This is not so much of a problem for packages with a single assembly, but for those with multiple assemblies and particularly with tool executables, the manner of installation often matters.

2. Bugs come to the upstream project, usually without any info that a non-standard installation was used.

The natural problems are exacerbated by what appear to be some lacks (unless I missed them) in nuget.org itself.

1. As stated above, there is no stated policy about the rights to a name and no way to resolve disputes.

2. There is no way to submit a bug on the package itself.

3. There appears to be no oversight to ensure that license requirements are complied with.

4. There is no published way for the copyright holder to complain if the license requirements are not met.

5. There isn't even a place to contact the folks who run the gallery.

Am I missing something? These all seem to be very basic things you would want in a gallery, not merely to protect authors but also to protect the companies that use the gallery from liability.

Charlie

Feb 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Hey Charlie. Use the report abuse link. That's the prescribed method to get you to the gallery folks. I know it's not intuitive, but it is what is there today.

David or Drew can get you fixed up.

Feb 18, 2012 at 2:27 PM

 

As far as #1 and #2 go, there probably should be some instructions somewhere on nuget.org or in the docs that speak to steps an author can take to take over ownership of a package.

Feb 18, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Correct, that's the right way to do it. Basically:

  • Click 'contact owner' first
  • If no proper response, click 'report abuse'

The two links are just next to each other on the package page. And yes, there should be a short paragraph about it on nuget.org. Generally, all those situations have been easily resolved before, and I'm sure this one will as well!

Feb 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM

FYI, I pinged the owner on Twitter. I'm sure he'll resolve things with you.

Feb 18, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I thought about using that link, but it didn't seem right since there's no abuse involved. IMO, there should be a less harsh way to contact the site.

Feb 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM
ferventcoder wrote:

 

As far as #1 and #2 go, there probably should be some instructions somewhere on nuget.org or in the docs that speak to steps an author can take to take over ownership of a package.

Or simply whether he has that right or not. It's not a given, and different communities operate differently in this regard.

Feb 18, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Thanks David.

Up to now, it felt like I was dealing with a faceless corporate entity. Now I have a name, picture and blog for the guy. Somehow that makes it seem more possible that this can be resolved.

Feb 18, 2012 at 6:06 PM
Edited Feb 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Hi - it hs been me updating the package on Nuget. I took over when someone else wasn't able to continue. I am more than happy to transfer the ownership as I am not trying to pass this as my own work.

As far as the contents of the package, I have been using the contents of the windows installer http://nunit.org/?p=download. Please provide me with a nuget.org name and I will transfer it

(I did blog about how I think Nuget could change things http://www.paulstack.co.uk/blog/post/how-nuget-could-improve.aspx and included details about what I did to the Nunit package)

Sorry if this has been an issue for you

Paul

Feb 18, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Hi Paul,

I suspect you took over from the same guy with whom I had an earlier
disagreement about the content back when it was on Ruby.Gems - if not
from a successor. So, while there has been an ongoing issue for a long
time, you aren't the cause of it. Also, I had no notion that you were
trying to pass it off as your own work - I'm just a bit put off by the
NuGet terminology. Any grumpiness you may see in my earlier notes -
and there indeed was some - is directed at nuget, not you.

That earlier disagreement was, in fact, that I don't believe the full
contents of the NUnit release really belong in a single nuget package.
The originator of the NUnit Nu package thought otherwise, so when I
couldn't reach an agreement and ownership being 9/10s of the law, I
simply backed off and ignored nu/nupack/nuget - until recently when
folks started asking about it in the context of NUnit 2.6 RC.

Checking into it, I saw that over 60,000 users have downloaded NUnit
via NuGet. It seems like I should pay attention to those folks,
whatever I may think of the notion myself.

Anyway, my nuget.org name is charliepoole. If you are willing to work
with me offline I'll try to make the first (2.6) release consistent
with what you have been doing and save any changes in package
structure for 3.0, when users are more likely to be expecting them.

Charlie

PS: I guess Codeplex is a bit opaque about user identities as well. If
you want to contact me, you can use charlie AT nunit DOT org.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM, stack72 <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:
> From: stack72
>
> Hi - it hs been me updating the package on Nuget. I took over when someone
> else wasn't able to continue. I am more than happy to transfer the ownership
> as I am not trying to pass this as my own work.
>
> As far as the contents of the package, I have been using the contents of the
> windows installer http://nunit.org/?p=download. Please provide me with a
> nuget.org name and I will transfer it
>
> Sorry if this has been an issue for you
>
> Paul
>
> Read the full discussion online.
>
> To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email
> ([email removed])
>
> To start a new discussion for this project, email
> [email removed]
>
> You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on
> CodePlex. You can unsubscribe on CodePlex.com.
>
> Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts
> to this discussion will also be available online at CodePlex.com
Feb 18, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Charlie,

First off, I know Paul Stack personally and I can assure you that no ill-intent was meant. Despite this, your point is quite valid and we've (JetBrains) have had the same issue in the past, and in those cases there is probably no ill-intent either. But there is still an issue. It was partially resolved in that recently they tried to create two fields: one was the owner of the package, another the author. That hasn't entirely resolved the situation. For instance, take a look at 

http://nuget.org/packages/adjunct-JetBrains.Annotations.Core

The author appears as JetBrains and the package maintainer. 

There are two packages for our Annotations on NuGet already and yet we still haven't released our own version. Yet to date, we get support requests about it as if we were maintaining these packages. Now whether that abides by the license, whether people don't distinguish or care to distinguish between owners or maintainers, ultimately, it does cause certain issues. Do these issues warrant imposing certain restrictions? Not sure. 

Feb 18, 2012 at 7:40 PM

I was the original guy with nu, and I believe we came to the conclusion that there would be an nunit.full (or something like that) that would be the successor to nunit, and nunit would live on with just the libs. Does that sound vaguely familiar?

I'm guessing that got lost in translation to nupack - the nunit package I didn't own or have any input on at all for nuget. With the short transition cycle, I probably should have followed up to ensure that there would be two, so I dropped the ball there. My bad.

Of course in the my intent was not meant in any bad way either, I am sorry if it came across that way in our original discussion. In my book a 3rd party package owner is a curator of sorts and should always respect the wishes of the owners of the contents of the package while at the same time considering the needs of those on the other end of the package itself. That balance could be delicate sometimes, and again I apologize if I came across in a bad way.

Rob

Feb 18, 2012 at 7:56 PM
Hi Rob,

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM, ferventcoder
<notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:
> From: ferventcoder
>
> I was the original guy with nu, and I believe we came to the conclusion that
> there would be an nunit.full (or something like that) that would be the
> successor to nunit, and nunit would live on with just the libs. Does that
> sound vaguely familiar?

Yup... I remember. I just didn't name you because it seems rude to name a
third party in a discussion thread. My memory is that I was going to do two
packages when I took it over. You gave me the authority on Ruby.Gems but
that became moot about a week later when NuPack emerged.

> I'm guessing that got lost in translation to nupack - the nunit package I
> didn't own or have any input on at all for nuget. With the short transition
> cycle, I probably should have followed up to ensure that there would be two,
> so I dropped the ball there. My bad.

I guess I assumed you were part of NuPack, given your enthusiasm. So I
confess to being unfairly p***ed off at you for not getting back to me.

> Of course in the my intent was not meant in any bad way either, I am sorry
> if it came across that way in our original discussion. In my book a 3rd
> party package owner is a curator of sorts and should always respect the
> wishes of the owners of the contents of the package while at the same time
> considering the needs of those on the other end of the package itself. That
> balance could be delicate sometimes, and again I apologize if I came across
> in a bad way.

I always took it that your passion for Nu drove the disagreement, rather than
any intent to do bad. :-) My side works the same way.

I just noticed that you're now providing for central installation of
software that
needs to be installed that way through chocolatey. Very interesting.

Charlie
> Rob
>
> Read the full discussion online.
>
> To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email
> ([email removed])
>
> To start a new discussion for this project, email
> [email removed]
>
> You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on
> CodePlex. You can unsubscribe on CodePlex.com.
>
> Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts
> to this discussion will also be available online at CodePlex.com