On another hand, Not only do I choose to side with the authors on this issue of whether they can opt-out of packs, I also will do so despite of what their license states.
A question about granularity of the proposed ui pack system if I may;
The UI Pack developers are acting some what like an Open Source OS distributor (RedHat/Debian/Canonical/etc). They're bundling things in to an end product that is at least in the spirit of the original works.
I would instruct UI Pack devs to research the licensing of the AddOns with in their packs, just as the above entities must. Further, unlicensed addons would require them to seek the authors explicit approval for its use. Anything that is too strict to allow its redistribution would require the UI Pack dev to find an accommodating alternative, or author a replacement with a suitable license on their own.
In this case, say the OP has figured out that his pack is mostly GPL/BSD licensed, and actually got permission from the unlicensed addon's authors to redistribute. Would there then be a method to get those addons back in for that specific compilation?
i.e. If say Phanx opted out of UI compilations in general, could he specifically opt-in to specific ones that have gotten his permission?
Visa versa, if an author opted in to UI compilations in general, then found a compilation that blatantly offended their better sensibilities, could they specifically opt-out of that specific compilation?
You've been given permission to download and use it since it's available for download. You haven't been give permission to redistribute it.
"0-Dayz Forumz" forums are that way. --> And for the record, the Internet is for communication. Sharing is a benefit, not a requirement.
Hi. Welcome to the WoWAce forums. A developer community.
I can see that this will only end up a flame war if it goes too far, but the reality is that anything an author writes/creates is his/hers. They have the right to decide how it's distributed. That you even get to use it is a privilege. With all due respect and not trying to be rude, if you don't like it that's just too bad. /shrug
Depends completely on the license. GPL/CC or any other OSI license would grant them the explicit ability to redist till their heart is content.
99% of the stuff here is some OSI license, in which case it's out of the authors control, they can't even revoke the license at a later point (hence OSS forks). Or no license, which I have no idea, IANAL but w/o stating you can/can't do something, and w/o including a notice/copy right/license while releasing it in "human readable form" on the internet... I'd say you'd have one hell of tough time with the legal system retroactively assigning a license to it.
As with anything else in life, the entire debate is a shade of gray. It's neither "The intrewebs r 4 warez" nor is it "author says, so stfu and do what you're told".
Thankfully I'd assume most authors have thought licensing through and assigned one (or implicitly decided not to) to their project that they find morally acceptable.
P.S. I won't even get in to the specifics of non-licensed software developed via an open source software model used here where multiple authors commonly work on a single product, each with their own possible license for their particular work.
P.P.S. not to start/continue a flame war, but there's a lot more at play than just "I don't like that don't do it cause I say".