Comment 13 for bug 1273484

(In reply to Andy Brist from comment #10)
> For clarification purposes, the monitoring-plugins project team has
> essentially forked the project. Nagios Enterprises owns the nagios-plugins
> project. The monitoring-plugins team changed the name and location of the
> repo. Nagios Enterprises has rebased with a new team using the same urls
> and repo locations the project has always used.
> Further evidence of the fork can be found on the git repos for the
> monitoring-plugins site:

The only evidence I do see here is the fact that Nagios Enterprises *never* controlled the project in any way, only got the domain transferred for trademark reasons. Owning a project does not necessarily mean to control their releases and development cycles.

So basically, once and for all, the same volunteers have acted as Nagios Plugins Development Team and are now providing their same hard work under a new name, required by the obvious change enforced by Nagios Enterprises in regards of changing the domain and its content to a duplicate (a 1:1 copy, a fork) of the website, now trying to convince upstream packagers that it's their project.

The only fact here what counts imho - upstream packagers are not bound to upstream tarball sources, nor any trademark enforcing them to do so some action.

And just because Nagios Enterprises claims to own the nagios plugins project doesn't mean that Fedora must use their tarball. Fedora may just use the one provided by monitoring-plugins, just like other upstream distributions like Debian will do.

> My apologies for any disruption this has caused. It is my opinion that no
> action needs to be taken at the moment. When a new release from either
> project is ready, they should end up in their respective packages:
> nagios-plugins should remain nagios-plugins, while monitoring-plugins should
> be packaged under a different name (monitoring-plugins perhaps?).

Imho ships the only valid history for updating the Fedora package 'nagios-plugins' and making sure that future packages remain built from the same source, as before. Imho a new, even rebased project must provide proof and evidence that they will continue to develop the current used upstream sources, and may ask to take over the probably misleading name. But not with just importing a forked code repository on github, and then coming here, and telling that everything is ok (which obviously it isn't).