2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
5:17 p.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 16:31:55 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
No. I have previously stated that I have a separate project for this now.
I am also working on a fork, because after reviewing parts of the code
I realize, as any professional programmer would, that this really needs
a lot of fixing. I am already fixing some parts for my own use and later
they will be put out.
One thing that should be asked is why is all the documentation not
available under a free license, just like the software? It is usual for
the documentation to also be free for modification and distribution,
or else further development is crippled to some degree by this
oversight.
This is usual for a project that is released publically but considering
the lack of documentation that many projects have it is not always made
available. it goes against the spirit of open source but not the letter
of the law. Even Ardour was at one point a non publically documented
project although that has now changed.
On Sunday
02 August 2009 15:49:52 you wrote:
Any damage that resulted, real or imagined, can be traced back to the
originators release practices in not complying fully with the GPL. If all
things had been done to comply from the start then there would have
been nothing to discuss.
I agree that this could have been averted by a more judicious
application of protocol on Bob's part. You have forced the issue and I
think both parties have tried to make their case in a professional and
non personal manner. Although I haven't read all the posts so I can't
really quantify that last statement.
It seems that things are moving forwards though?
I hope that you will continue to be motivated to contribute to the
project now that Bob has released it to sf.net as that would appear to
be your main reason for forcing the issue.
And where are all the scripts, libraries, and so forth
to create all the
distributable packages. GPL stipulates that they must be included.
Thus there are packages that cannot be generated with the Ant build
file that is included. This is another GPL violation.
This is an item that Bob will need to fix at some point preferably
sooner rather than later but as he has only just put the code online it
is not unreasonable for him to have delayed that aspect until for
example, Monday when he is paid to work. A short message explaining the
reason for not including the scripts and when they will be included is
standard protocol and would probably solve that issue.
However if the institute does not provide that code ever then I agree
that it constitutes a full violation of the license.
So things are still not alright on the Impro-Visor
project by their own hand
in regard to licenses.
As it's not particularly difficult to include the build scripts in the
public repo it does appear that Bob is playing a game of cat and mouse
in this case.
I really find it hard to believe that he doesn't know the rules but I
have to give the benefit of the doubt as there are still many people who
don't understand the GPL.
Raymond
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev