[LAD] Improvisor lilypond support!?

[Grammostola Rosea]

laseray at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Thanks man. I'll forward this to Bob Keller too. 
>>>> I think he mentioned in a message that he is willing to give developers 
>>>> svn access to the recent code. 
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Really. Last year I found Improvisor and wanted to contribute to it,
>>> so I got  in contact with Bob. I made some changes to integrate the
>>> application better into the desktop (on Mac OS X also) and did some
>>> initial cleanup.  
>>> The reaction I received was less than welcoming. In fact, the message I
>>> got was that they were not interested in really allowing outside
>>> developers to contribute. Thus my changes were never used, or considered
>>> as far as I can tell. What I got was a bunch of excuses about the
>>> situation with the application until finally this Bob guy came straight
>>> out and harshly refused to cooperate on development. I even had to ask
>>> numbers of time before I could finally get the source code and this
>>> resulted in it finally being posted on the group. 
>>> Basically the group that works on it is his student research group at the
>>> educational institution he is employed at. So it appears that they just
>>> want to keep all the glory and credit for the application to themselves by
>>> disallowing outside contributions. This is really not manner that we
>>> usually associate with FOSS. The fact that you have to subscribe to a user
>>> group even to get the binary is one big clue. To my mind the only reason
>>> it is under GPL is because they use other libraries that are, not because
>>> they see some benefit to doing so. 
>>> The only way to go with this application, at the moment, is to fork it. I
>>> was considering doing this a while ago, but have other projects keeping me
>>> busy. If you can convince them to open it up, great. I wouldn't hold my
>>> breath though. If enough other developers are interested then I could give
>>> some time to a fork. 
>>>       
>
>   
>> This is what he replied me 
>>     
>  
>   
>> "If there are developers who are serious, I could provide svn access to 
>> our repository. Right now there are 3 people who are active. We are 
>> about to release version 4, which is almost a year out from version 3.39 
>> that is in the user group. " 
>>     
>  
>   
>> So I think we have to go the working together way first. 
>> I've forwarded the message of Lasconic to him, let's wait for his reply 
>> on that. 
>>     
>  
>  
> No, I think you are wrong here to even consider trying to cooperate. I waited
> after your initial reply to respond because obviously you weren't fully
> considering my points, so I decided to see what happens. Now a preview of the 
> next version of impro-visor has been released and it is as I expected. No
> source code, again. Blatant GPL violation again. That was unexpected, not!
>
> Where's that SourceForge project also? That's right, it does not exist.
>
> I sent a message about the missing source code, again. I wonder what excuses
> he will give, again (or has he decided to not even respond to my legitimate
> inquiries now). Last time it was that he was on the road or busy or <enter
> lame excuse here>. He had the time to package up binaries for Linux,
> Mac, and Windows, but could not zip up the source and post it at the same 
> time?! Go check that with him and let's see how the responses match what I am
> saying.
>
> Now I am seriously considering forking this application myself, to make
> sure that everyone can get the current source code, they do not have
> to join some group just to get the binary, and that real contributions can
> actually get in. Yeah, I'm a serious developer, but that guy never offered to
> give me any access and the new version still has bugs that I already fixed
> which he would not accept.
>
> I will give it a little longer, but if these people don't get their act
> together and start doing things in accord with the GPL, then they should
> either change their license and remove all GPL stuff or not be surprised when
> a forked version appears (Improvisor+ sounds good: Improvisor, plus the source
> code and the ability for others to contribute, and not needing to be in some
> group just to get it, and ...).
>  
> There has been plenty of time for them to do the right thing. Time has run
> out already. Let's not be naive. Some people put out applications as GPL
> just so they can say they did, but really they just want to ride on the FOSS
> bandwagon to look good. Then when you try to get involved, contribute, or
> ask for the source code, all of a sudden they clamp down on things and show
> you that they want to control everything, as if it is a commercial proprietary
> program. Sorry this does not fly with me. I have had this experience with
> another project that thinks they are FOSS and that they can do no wrong. The 
> end result was that I did actually end up having to fork the program because 
> of their inability to conduct themselves properly.
>
> Perhaps some other people should get in contact with this project and voice
> their concerns and views about how FOSS and GPL based projects do things.
> If they start to do things right, then I won't have to fork it. But either 
> way, the source code and binaries WILL be freely available and without need
> for membership in some group. Drive that point home if you will.
>
>
>   
Please calm down a bit and be patience. He clearly says, he wanted first 
to make version 4 available and then he will make a sourceforge account.

"I am pleased to announce that a preview version of Impro-Visor version 
4 is available for download in the Files area. This version includes a 
number of important features:"

AFAIK it's just a preview version yet, so you need to be patient...

I have good hope, the source will get on sourceforge after the 4 release :)


\r