[LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

laseray at gmail.com laseray at gmail.com
Mon Jul 27 19:47:07 UTC 2009


On Monday 27 July 2009 15:16:15 Robert Keller wrote:
> Dear linux-audio developers,
>
> I have created New Project https://sourceforge.net/projects/impro-
> visor/ for Impro-Visor, which is its correct name. 

It is the correct name for "Impro-Visor". My project is named Improvisor
for a reason. And you see, I could have easily chosen Impro-Visor, but
I did not on purpose. My project is not just about the original version.
I wish you would please try to reason things out a little more. My project
can have the original and forked versions. In which case the forks would not
be Impro-Visor in the absolute sense, would they. So at least a slight
different name seemed appropriate. Now say thank you for me leaving
that name open for you. What! No thank you, how uncivil.

> I will populate the 
> source later today, as I need time to get acquainted with their
> system, but I have to be off right now to another important meeting
> for the afternoon and can't do it instantly. The source I will post
> will be our version 4.0.

Now that was not difficult was it.

>
> Regarding the assertion made earlier by another that I did not contact
> sourceforge about the fork 'improvisor', see the forwarded message.
> The fact that SF did not remove the other project immediately does not
> mean they won't. Not everything happens at lightspeed. It would be a
> true indication of courtesy and cooperation if the creator of that
> project were simply to remove 'improvisor' as a possible source of
> confusion. If not, I will consider the options regarding this action.

If SF asks me then I will change it, not remove it (unless it is obligatory). 
I do not owe anything to the original project and can do what I want
within the rules of the GPL, and those of SF, if and or when they apply.

> Forking at 3.39 would not really be a problem for me, but it seems
> that there would be less stress and duplication of effort overall if
> we were to proceed as I am suggesting. A year of development has been
> put in between 3.39 and 4.0. (Why so long, you ask? For one thing
> because of changes started by students, but not integrated, sometimes
> take a long time to integrate.)

Makes no difference. There is no obligation for me or anyone else to
make it easier for anybody. Development can be conducted in any
way that a project sees fit, in accord with applicable licenses/rules.

As to the SF notice to him. Phoney, baloney. I never said that he did not 
contact them. I trying say that I seriously doubt his claim. That is just the
usual message to people when they try to make a complaint about copyright
infringement. He was making it sound like he had a legitimate claim. What
a bunch of BS. SF will go to my project get the packages, open them up and
see no infringements at all. Same code/binaries + GPL license equals
all in accord with the law and the SF rules. Read them, learn them, know them. 
I do.

Egg on the face or eating crow is not so good though.

Raymond

> From: "SourceForge.net Support" <sfnet_ops at corp.sourceforge.com>
> Date: July 27, 2009 9:20:36 AM PDT
> To: Bob.Keller at hmc.edu
> Subject: Re: Project: Improvisor has been reported as inappropriate
>
> Hello,
>
> Based on your complaint, it appears that you may wish to report a case
> of copyright infringement. SourceForge.net deals expediently with
> reports of copyright infringement.
>
> To report copyright infringement, please use our DMCA Notification
> Procedure as per
> 
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sitelegal/wiki/DMCA%20Notification%20Procedure
>
> Regards,
> Chris Tsai
> SourceForge Support
> sfnet_ops at corp.sourceforge.com
>
> PS. When you submitted this report, you did not leave us any contact
> info to reply to. As such, I've taken the liberty of looking up your
> e-mail the Harvey Mudd College directory search. I trust this was not
> a problem.
>





More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list