27 Jan
2011
27 Jan
'11
10:07 p.m.
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 04:02:20 pm Christopher Cherrett did opine:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: gene heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 01:57 PM
The correct attributions, possibly with a sentence or 2 describing how the
fork came to be in the README in download able package. What, 10 minutes
work plus the repacking?
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
<http://tinyurl.com/ddg5bz>
Ten persons who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.
-- Napoleon I
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:43:40 pm Chris
Cannam did opine:
+1000
This very well said, Chris. I personally do not have a dog in this
fight, but had that been some of my now elderly code, I think I would
be justified in calling this new effort out, as has now been more
than amply done by others here, and the point _has_ been made.
Unfortunately, I am probably doing little except contributing to the
roar of disapproval by the crowd.:(
To Alex and your crew:
It is likely that this contretemps will not fully settle until such
time as the proper attributions have been restored and a new release
containing those attributions has been made.
Defensive attitudes do not cut it, performance does.
A new release? What exactly do you expect? On 27 January 2011 19:38, Christopher
Cherrett<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
wrote:
I suspect
there is much more to this puzzle than attribution.
No, really not. Attribution is incredibly important to many open
source developers, partly because there are so few tangible benefits
involved with open source work, and partly because the force of the
licenses we use (particularly the GPL) depends on being confident
about the ownership of copyright. It matters a great deal to people
if you take someone's work and represent it as your own.
And it's a pity, because a situation like this or the earlier
Rosegarden fork ought to be beneficial to everybody. With
Rosegarden, your project's focus was different from that of any of
our core developers and, although we like to keep people happy, we
really weren't able to spend the time to do the things you wanted.
Forking ensured that people who liked things "your way" had
somewhere else to go, which made things better for them and simpler
for us.
In light of that, it's a great shame that the resulting new project
should then give us such a sour impression -- and the same thing is
true again here. Your casual attitude to other people's work means
that I and probably many others would avoid working with you again,
but that negative feeling could have been avoided with such a tiny
amount of thought and even less work.
Chris