26 Jun
2014
26 Jun
'14
12:13 a.m.
Hi,
I have to say I'm mostly on Hermann's side of the argument here -
On 25 June 2014 22:10, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
... without respect for the
original author's intentions and in fact subverting those
in particular I think this is actually one of the most important and
positive features and freedoms of open-source development.
There's one thing common to the zita-xxxx series
(of which you
know only a small part), and that is that the design of each of those
apps is not limited to just the DSP code.... All of that is part of what the
'zita' mark is meant
to represent. ... And then you turn it into a toy for musicians and make it look like a
1950s piece of vintage gear. And call that zita-rev while IT IS NOT
zita-rev, by far.
OTOH you have the right to disown and not have the forked work passed
off as your's. You could keep your code free while limiting the
rights to use the 'zita' mark to your own work, and could potentially
request the various forks use a different name - it's allowed to be
more explicit with that clause within the GPL too in future should you
be persuaded to keep with that license in other respects.
Best wishes,
Neil
--
Neil C Smith
Artist : Technologist : Adviser
http://neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia development - www.praxislive.org
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections -
www.digitalprisoners.co.uk