27 Jul
2009
27 Jul
'09
5:40 p.m.
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(a)corp.sourceforge.com>
Date: July 27, 2009 9:20:36 AM PDT
To: Bob.Keller(a)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%20Proce…
Regards,
Chris Tsai
SourceForge Support
sfnet_ops(a)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.