2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
3:13 p.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:49:52 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Shirkey
> <pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com <mailto:pshirkey@boosthardware.com>> wrote:
>
> This whole problem could have been solved if you had originally
> provided Ray with access to the source when he asked for it, but
> in essence you should be making your code available from the start
> at a public location.
>
> I did make the code available when he asked for it, as I've already
> stated. My understanding of the GPL is that it is not essential to
> post the code publicly, as long as it is made available on request. I
> certainly did that.
I have to disagree with that to an extent. The code was not provided
immediately, some element of force had to came into play.
Sorry, I missed this previous statement. In this case
then I don't see
how you have violated the terms of the GPL. If you provided the code
when requested that should have been enough.
Merely providing the source, with or without force needed to obtain it,
did not altogether resolve the GPL violations. Some may still exist given
the number that were uncovered and the vague situation with regard
to the changed copyrights from one version to another. More detailed
clarification is still needed on this front.
I read in Ray's earlier posts on the issue that he
had not received any
code.
> As far as I can tell, no parties in this group are damaged as a result
> of our efforts to provide the fruits of our labors. If there are
> developers who think they were damaged, they should write to me and
> state the case, then we can try to resolve it. However, I must
> speculate that this is very unlikely; we treat our developers as
> colleagues, not as adversaries.
Colleagues usually get equal billing in the copyrights. The current code
does not show this equal treatment.
Certainly your own party has been damaged due to the
controversy that
has been stirred. However I don't see it as a permanent problem as it
seems that Ray has made his point and you have come to the party
and clarified the issue, even going so far as to publically release your
latest version of the code on Source Forge, IIUC.
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.
Raymond