29 Jan
2011
29 Jan
'11
2:06 a.m.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Tim E. Real <termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
On January 27, 2011 04:35:47 pm Christopher Cherrett
wrote:
Attribution has been added as requested.
We'll add the history attribution in the about box as soon as we have
the chance.
The lurking insinuation is nonsense and you know it. We didn't
"pester" you fix things, we were willing to do it ourselves, but you
said no, more than once, as you wanted to do it yourself, as only you
could do it, or at least that's what you told us.
I didn't change the Readme as a direct challenge to you, it was a
mistake on my part, and i noted the date in case there was a problem.
Why would i do this knowing you'd be waiting in the wings to jump and
find something wrong?
If you have the courage to do this in a mature fashion going forward,
then let us know privately if we've missed anything else.
We've added a changelog.muse to the git repo, and we'll reference it
in the changelog. As a courtesy, we'll also add a reference to muse in
the already maintained copyright section in each file.
Is that suitable for you?
Alex.
p.s. Orcan and Robert continue to have my respect, because at least
they tried to handle this in a mature and adult manner.
Could the community please review the attribution
so we may continue
with our journey? This attribution appears on the website, github,
README and anywhere else you guys need to see it.
From the GPL section 5:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and
giving a relevant date.
I still don't see anything in the about box or the oo website mentioning this.
And as was mentioned here, you cannot claim sole copyright.
Is this what you call attribution? Erasing every last mention of muse,
even in comments?
I received permission from Josh, the Fluidsynth and Swami author, to use
the fluidsynth logo, on condition of attribution in AUTHORS, where I added
his name.
But you have removed his name from AUTHORS. That is wrong.
I'm sorry but "Special Thanks to the MusE developers" in the AUTHORS
doesn't cut it. It sounds like we simply helped with a module or something.
Browsing, you removed my name and stamp from the top of at least one file:
README.effects-rack, and put your name there.
If I understand the GPL, you are not to remove such attributions, anywhere.
Yes Alex, *I* wrote that several hundred word essay, not *you* ,on how
to use the effects rack. That was after I spent 2 weeks fixing the rack.
Do you know who has contributed much of the thousands of lines in
the MusE ChangeLog over the past five years? Me.
But you wouldn't know that since you completely removed the ChangeLog.
So again, you have removed *many* attributions there, mine and many others
who worked on MusE. I would never do that.
What is this shining piece of software you 'professionals' make?
Where can I buy a copy so I can call you up the same day, and tell you,
quote, "it sucks", and demand changes, and you will do it the same day,
for free? Really, I'd like to know. Please tell me what it is.
Yes, only you know how software should be. Let us all bow down and do things
your way.
I try very hard to accommodate all requests.
But a group of developers pestering me to fix dozens
of things within mere hours or days due to some 'urgency', is sick.
Not one single patch contributed to us. Nothing.
Why don't YOU spend five years of your lives learning the code?
Do you care that I just finished the soloing system, as you requested?
I clearly marked all changes to help you guys, even after the fork.
BTW You owe Orcan so much gratitude.
He personally converted many thousands of lines of MusE code and UIs to Qt4,
while you guys lurked on the side waiting for us to finish.
Without him, OOM2 and MusE2 are nothing.
Tim.