2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
2:50 p.m.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Warmest regards.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
2 Aug
2 Aug
3:13 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
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
3:32 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:49:52 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
I agree. IIUC there are issues with the original copyright being
attributed to multiple parties instead of under the institutes name.
I think Bob has clarified that this was a lapse on the part of the QA
process as all contributions were from people under research grant and
therefore the property of the institute. I believe that this has now
been rectified in the license for the latest release.
I missed any other items that were up for scrutiny.
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Patrick
Shirkey
> <pshirkey@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
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
4 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 16:31:55 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
No. I have previously stated that I have a separate project for this now.
I am also working on a fork, because after reviewing parts of the code
I realize, as any professional programmer would, that this really needs
a lot of fixing. I am already fixing some parts for my own use and later
they will be put out.
One thing that should be asked is why is all the documentation not
available under a free license, just like the software? It is usual for
the documentation to also be free for modification and distribution,
or else further development is crippled to some degree by this
oversight.
And where are all the scripts, libraries, and so forth to create all the
distributable packages. GPL stipulates that they must be included.
Thus there are packages that cannot be generated with the Ant build
file that is included. This is another GPL violation.
So things are still not alright on the Impro-Visor project by their own hand
in regard to licenses.
Raymond
On Sunday 02
August 2009 15:49:52 you wrote:
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.
I agree that this could have been averted by a more judicious
application of protocol on Bob's part. You have forced the issue and I
think both parties have tried to make their case in a professional and
non personal manner. Although I haven't read all the posts so I can't
really quantify that last statement.
It seems that things are moving forwards though?
I hope that you will continue to be motivated to contribute to the
project now that Bob has released it to sf.net as that would appear to
be your main reason for forcing the issue.
5:17 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 16:31:55 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
No. I have previously stated that I have a separate project for this now.
I am also working on a fork, because after reviewing parts of the code
I realize, as any professional programmer would, that this really needs
a lot of fixing. I am already fixing some parts for my own use and later
they will be put out.
One thing that should be asked is why is all the documentation not
available under a free license, just like the software? It is usual for
the documentation to also be free for modification and distribution,
or else further development is crippled to some degree by this
oversight.
This is usual for a project that is released publically but considering
the lack of documentation that many projects have it is not always made
available. it goes against the spirit of open source but not the letter
of the law. Even Ardour was at one point a non publically documented
project although that has now changed.
On Sunday
02 August 2009 15:49:52 you wrote:
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.
I agree that this could have been averted by a more judicious
application of protocol on Bob's part. You have forced the issue and I
think both parties have tried to make their case in a professional and
non personal manner. Although I haven't read all the posts so I can't
really quantify that last statement.
It seems that things are moving forwards though?
I hope that you will continue to be motivated to contribute to the
project now that Bob has released it to sf.net as that would appear to
be your main reason for forcing the issue.
And where are all the scripts, libraries, and so forth
to create all the
distributable packages. GPL stipulates that they must be included.
Thus there are packages that cannot be generated with the Ant build
file that is included. This is another GPL violation.
This is an item that Bob will need to fix at some point preferably
sooner rather than later but as he has only just put the code online it
is not unreasonable for him to have delayed that aspect until for
example, Monday when he is paid to work. A short message explaining the
reason for not including the scripts and when they will be included is
standard protocol and would probably solve that issue.
However if the institute does not provide that code ever then I agree
that it constitutes a full violation of the license.
So things are still not alright on the Impro-Visor
project by their own hand
in regard to licenses.
As it's not particularly difficult to include the build scripts in the
public repo it does appear that Bob is playing a game of cat and mouse
in this case.
I really find it hard to believe that he doesn't know the rules but I
have to give the benefit of the doubt as there are still many people who
don't understand the GPL.
Raymond
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
5:25 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Aug 2, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
As it's not particularly difficult to include the build scripts in
the public repo it does appear that Bob is playing a game of cat and
mouse in this case.
That seems rather callous to me, Patrick. I am trying my best, in the
face of people constantly yelling at me. You seem to take the claims
that others make directly, without asking me first for clarification.
A little calmness and courtesy would contribute immensely to the
situation.
There are no "other scripts". The only thing missing is the nbproject
directory, which I am trying to force in, as I said.
Bob
Robert M. Keller, Csilla & Walt Foley Professor of Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, California 91711
5:36 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
keller wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
can we please bury this urban myth that anybody who releases software
under the gpl is legally bound to include makefiles and such?
surely everybody has read this statement?:
"THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS"
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND
PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU."
(the yelling is not mine, but i think i would have added it if the
original were lowercase)
listening to some gpl zealots here, every project with broken makefiles
is in violation of the gpl. that is most certainly not the case.
if i decide to toss out a bunch of files under the gpl, it's not my
responsibility to make them usable to you. it's a best effort thing -
how would you react if someone got on your nerves because your pet
project doesn't build on their sparc32/solaris because of some autotools
problem? you would tell them, go fixit yourself. and rightfully so.
so please, if you miss an ant file for a gift horse, write yourself one!
As it's not particularly difficult to include the build scripts in the
public repo it does appear that Bob is playing a game of cat and mouse
in this case.
That seems rather callous to me, Patrick. I am trying my best, in the
face of people constantly yelling at me. You seem to take the claims
that others make directly, without asking me first for clarification. A
little calmness and courtesy would contribute immensely to the situation.
There are no "other scripts". The only thing missing is the nbproject
directory, which I am trying to force in, as I said. 
5:46 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday, 2 August 2009 at 21:36, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
can we please bury this urban myth that anybody who
releases software
under the gpl is legally bound to include makefiles and such?
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
definition files, PLUS THE SCRIPTS USED TO CONTROL COMPILATION AND INSTALLATION
OF THE EXECUTABLE."
Emphasis mine, from the GPL v2.
6:50 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Christian Ohm wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2009 at 21:36, Jörn Nettingsmeier
wrote:
sigh. this is the license for you, the person who is redistributing the
software. you must not remove any of those build and install scripts
that you received when redistributing the software.
it is not binding to the original author for his/her original work. what
bob can't do is include third-party software licensed under the gpl
*without* including its build and install scripts.
how he compiles his own code is technically nobody's business.
i could write gpl'd original code and sell you a proprietary makefile
for $100,000.00 that you can't legally redistribute. if i feel like it.
can we please bury this urban myth that anybody
who releases software
under the gpl is legally bound to include makefiles and such?
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
definition files, PLUS THE SCRIPTS USED TO CONTROL COMPILATION AND INSTALLATION
OF THE EXECUTABLE."
5:42 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:21:35 keller wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Nobody is yelling at you. Please do not exaggerate.
As it's not particularly difficult to include
the build scripts in
the public repo it does appear that Bob is playing a game of cat and
mouse in this case.
That seems rather callous to me, Patrick. I am trying my best, in the
face of people constantly yelling at me. You seem to take the claims
that others make directly, without asking me first for clarification.
A little calmness and courtesy would contribute immensely to the
situation. There are no "other scripts". The only thing
missing is the nbproject
directory, which I am trying to force in, as I said.
I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build an executable and others.
For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was used?
If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml.
Raymond
5:51 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Raymond Martin wrote:
I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build an executable and
others.
For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was
used?
If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml.
As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product that I was using on
a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was
considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide
it.
All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it convenient
for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not
allowed?
Bob
Robert M. Keller, Csilla & Walt Foley Professor of Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, California 91711
6:11 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 12:47:32PM -0700, keller wrote:
As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product
that I was using on
a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was
considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide
it.
Including a commercial tool as part of a GPL'd project is
probably opening a can of worms of a color we haven't seen
before - I wouldn't dare comment on the consequences.
But do you really *need* it, or is it just nice to have ?
Open source development tools usually provide all that's
needed.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
6:16 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
But do you really *need* it, or is it just nice to have ?
Open source development tools usually provide all that's
needed.
Fons,
Just nice to have, as there is a end-user base that prefers such
things and we support 3 different platforms, so it was very convenient.
I have deleted all the installers and notified the users, anticipating
the complaints.
If anyone has a recommendation for a substitute for install4j, I'd
appreciate hearing about it.
Thanks.
Bob
Robert M. Keller, Csilla & Walt Foley Professor of Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, California 91711
6:36 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 16:12:48 keller wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
I think you have jump ahead a little here. Maybe you did not see my other
message. You can use whatever tools you want, just make any scripts
associated with it available, regardless of whether users/developers can get
the tools themselves. It would be better to use free tools for free software,
sometimes you cannot.
Raymond
But do you really *need* it, or is it just nice
to have ?
Open source development tools usually provide all that's
needed.
Fons,
Just nice to have, as there is a end-user base that prefers such
things and we support 3 different platforms, so it was very convenient.
I have deleted all the installers and notified the users, anticipating
the complaints.
If anyone has a recommendation for a substitute for install4j, I'd
appreciate hearing about it.
7:20 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:12:48PM -0700, keller wrote:
Just nice to have, as there is a end-user base that prefers such things and
we support 3 different platforms, so it was very convenient.
I have deleted all the installers and notified the users, anticipating the
complaints.
If anyone has a recommendation for a substitute for install4j, I'd
appreciate hearing about it.
There's Raymond's post claiming that this tool is actually
freely available - I don't know. Even if it is, it would
still be sort of a pain to a user to get trapped into
recursive dependencies forcing him/her to first install
X,Y,Z... before he/she can install the wanted program.
I'm a developer and have most tools installed anyway, but
I really hate it when such dependencies never seem to end.
OTOH, if I'm not mistaken your project is written in Java
which is supposed to be a cross-platform language and
'system'. So is installing an app such a big deal that it
can't be taken care of by some scripts or batch files ?
In the Linux world there are of course not only developers
but also packagers who take care of most of the work required
to make applications easy to install for end users. This form
of support is lacking for other platforms.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
3 Aug
3 Aug
1:56 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:12:48PM -0700, keller
wrote:
On sourceforge it seems to be another application:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/i4j-verifier/
A free download is available here:
http://www.ej-technologies.com/download/install4j/files.html
I won't install all that stuff, but the free download seems to be fine:
spinymouse-sudo@64studio:~$ ~/Desktop/install4j/bin/install4j
No suitable Java Virtual Machine could be found on your system.
The version of the JVM must be at least 1.5 and at most 1.6.
Please define INSTALL4J_JAVA_HOME to point to a suitable JVM.
You can also try to delete the JVM cache file
/home/spinymouse-sudo/.install4j
spinymouse-sudo@64studio:~$ rm -r ~/Desktop/install4j
spinymouse-sudo@64studio:~$
If anyone has a recommendation for a substitute for install4j, I'd
appreciate hearing about it.
There's Raymond's post claiming that this tool is actually
freely available - I don't know.
2 Aug
2 Aug
6:15 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:47:32 you wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Raymond Martin wrote:
Launch4J is FOSS and it is even hosted on SF. Anybody can get it for free.
I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build
an executable and
others.
For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was
used?
If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml.
As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product that I was using on
a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was
considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide
it. All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to
make it convenient
for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not
allowed?
No, I'm saying you have created executable packages using certain tools
for which you have scripts. Launch4J seems to one of them. You can use
whatever tools you want to create distributable packages, but if there is
some kind of configuration file/script to use that then you should supply
that along with the source code (even if the tools are commercial).
FYI, this does not apply to the stuff to build on a particular platform that
cannot be supplied unless the person has the OS (e.g., the Mac .dmg stuff
can only be created on a Mac, AFAIK).
Raymond
6:53 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
keller wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Raymond Martin wrote:
as stated in another mail, this is hogwash. you are perfectly entitled
to chose whatever build tool you want, without having to redistribute
it. just be careful that all the third-party software you include has
the original build files included.
I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build
an executable and
others.
For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was
used?
If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml.
As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product that I was using on
a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was
considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide
it.
All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it convenient
for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not
allowed?
7:31 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
keller wrote:
As I am hearing now then, I can use install4j as long as I provide the
install4j script (but not install4j itself) in the source repository.
Is that correct?
Thanks.
Bob
Robert M. Keller, Csilla & Walt Foley Professor of Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, California 91711
On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Raymond Martin
wrote:
as stated in another mail, this is hogwash. you are perfectly entitled
to chose whatever build tool you want, without having to redistribute
it. just be careful that all the third-party software you include has
the original build files included.
I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build
an executable and
others.
For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was
used?
If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml.
As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product that I was using
on
a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was
considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide
it.
All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it
convenient
for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's
not
allowed?
7:37 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 17:28:01 keller wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
Yes.
Raymond
keller wrote:
As I am hearing now then, I can use install4j as long as I provide the
install4j script (but not install4j itself) in the source repository.
Is that correct?
On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Raymond Martin
wrote:
as stated in another mail, this is hogwash. you are perfectly entitled
to chose whatever build tool you want, without having to redistribute
it. just be careful that all the third-party software you include has
the original build files included. I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build
an executable and
others.
For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was
used?
If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml.
As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product that I was using
on
a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was
considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide
it.
All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it
convenient
for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's
not
allowed?
7:59 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
keller wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
i'm pretty sure you can use anything you want (or nothing at all).
reasoning:
1. you are distributing third-party gpl code. make sure that it's
installable on its own, don't remove its build and install scripts.
2. you are distributing your own software, as-is, with a license of your
choice. nobody can force you to add installation or build scripts. what
if you aren't using any and compiling and linking by hand?
i'm not a lawyer (and also not interested in arguing the case). further
discussions and inquiries are probably best directed at the FSF.
my point was that it's totally misguided to accuse somebody who is
opening their original software under the gpl of non-compliance on the
grounds of not also providing build and install scripts for this
original software.
keller wrote:
As I am hearing now then, I can use install4j as long as I provide the
install4j script (but not install4j itself) in the source repository. On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Raymond Martin
wrote:
as stated in another mail, this is hogwash. you are perfectly entitled
to chose whatever build tool you want, without having to redistribute
it. just be careful that all the third-party software you include has
the original build files included.
I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build
an executable and
others.
For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was
used?
If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml.
As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product that I was using on
a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was
considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide
it.
All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it convenient
for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not
allowed?
8:35 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 17:59:24 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
keller wrote:
Not the case. Depends on circumstances.
On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier
wrote:
i'm pretty sure you can use anything you want (or nothing at all). keller wrote:
As I am hearing now then, I can use install4j as long as I provide the
install4j script (but not install4j itself) in the source repository. All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs
to make it convenient
for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not
allowed?
as stated in another mail, this is hogwash. you are perfectly entitled
to chose whatever build tool you want, without having to redistribute
it. just be careful that all the third-party software you include has
the original build files included.
reasoning:
1. you are distributing third-party gpl code. make sure that it's
installable on its own, don't remove its build and install scripts.
2. you are distributing your own software, as-is, with a license of your
choice. nobody can force you to add installation or build scripts. what
if you aren't using any and compiling and linking by hand?
Under the GPL they can, if you distribute binary packages that are made with
scripts. Else don't distribute those particular binaries.
i'm not a lawyer (and also not interested in
arguing the case). further
discussions and inquiries are probably best directed at the FSF.
Thus you don't really understand the meaning of the license then.
my point was that it's totally misguided to accuse
somebody who is
opening their original software under the gpl of non-compliance on the
grounds of not also providing build and install scripts for this
original software.
Then your point is incorrect, you just do not understand the license
properly. If your point was right then no one who uses the GPL and
distributes would have to provide the source code either. Both of
theses requirements are in the same section of the GPL and apply
equally to the originator as much as any other party using the
license. Everybody knows and agrees that the source code must
be provided, in kind any scripts used to create distributable packages
must also be included.
The relevant section is A.2 Terms and conditions for copying, distribution,
and modification. You will not find anything in that section that singles out
only those who modify and afterwards distribute/copy. The terms "copying,
distribution, and modification" can be consider almost mutually exclusive.
The terms there apply equally to all who distribute/copy, as well as modify.
Pay attention to section 3 specifically. It starts "you may copy and
distribute", that is the general "you". It does not say only those who
receive
from the original authors or modify the original, or something to that effect.
And this is why it is expected that even the original authors must supply the
source code. Everything after that, including scripts, comes under the same
conditions.
Raymond
3 Aug
3 Aug
12:01 a.m.
New subject: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
One thing I think everyone can appreciate is when there is an issue
concerning licensing that the responsible party does not turn around
on another list/group and make it sound like the "open source" people
are bad guys preventing others from doing what they want.
The actually facts of the situation are that people should make an
effort to get things sorted out before they ever distribute any code
or binaries. Attempts by others to set things right means they are
well-intentioned, not the other way around as expressed on that
group.
Shifting the burden of responsibility onto others is a good way to
have issues come back at you in the future. It really does not show
good intentions.
I mean, how difficult would it have been to just mention there was a problem
and that it would be fixed as things progress. Not very hard at all. So there
was no need for trying to paint others as the culprits in some bad situation
which the person brought on their self.
Behavior like that just makes me even more inclined to fork an application
because I know that I will respect licenses and clear all the little issues
up. Plus I welcome discussion, whether agreeing or disagreeing with my
own views.
If you want to discuss things you can do so by joining the Improvisor mailing
list on the project (http://sf.net/projects/improvisor). Anybody can,
that includes Mr. Keller, because that is how people cooperate and
participate, by not shutting people out.
Raymond
10:12 a.m.
New subject: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Raymond Martin <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One thing I think everyone can appreciate is when there is an issue
concerning licensing that the responsible party does not turn around
on another list/group and make it sound like the "open source" people
are bad guys preventing others from doing what they want.
The actually facts of the situation are that people should make an
effort to get things sorted out before they ever distribute any code
or binaries. Attempts by others to set things right means they are
well-intentioned, not the other way around as expressed on that
group.
Shifting the burden of responsibility onto others is a good way to
have issues come back at you in the future. It really does not show
good intentions.
I mean, how difficult would it have been to just mention there was a
problem
and that it would be fixed as things progress. Not very hard at all. So
there
was no need for trying to paint others as the culprits in some bad
situation
which the person brought on their self.
Behavior like that just makes me even more inclined to fork an application
because I know that I will respect licenses and clear all the little issues
up. Plus I welcome discussion, whether agreeing or disagreeing with my
own views.
If you want to discuss things you can do so by joining the Improvisor
mailing
list on the project (http://sf.net/projects/improvisor). Anybody can,
that includes Mr. Keller, because that is how people cooperate and
participate, by not shutting people out.
Raymond
I suggest that Raymond keep picking the GPL issues of Impro-Visor, till
everything is fixed. I'm not saying that Raymond should join now or that he
can't have his fork, but I hope that at some point Raymond can join the
Impro-Visor project and help improving Impro-Visor. Cause imho this will be
the best for all parties including and especially the end-user.
Regards,
\r
10:51 a.m.
New subject: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 03 August 2009 08:12:24 you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Raymond Martin
<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I suggest that Raymond keep picking the GPL issues of Impro-Visor, till
everything is fixed. I'm not saying that Raymond should join now or that he
can't have his fork, but I hope that at some point Raymond can join the
Impro-Visor project and help improving Impro-Visor. Cause imho this will be
the best for all parties including and especially the end-user.
Hopes do not always come true. This case is probably one of those times
because someone else has made it next to impossible to help the original.
Take a little inventory. Kicked off group, when not even sending messages to
it. Before that (last year), had messages censored due to differing ideas
(uphold GPL, distribute source, add improvements). A mailing list for the SF
Impro-Visor project is created. What chance do I have of getting on that or
staying on it if allowed to join given the previous actions? So I have to
create my own list where I know I will be fair and let everyone have their
say.
Let us not forget the negative comments on that group that basically attempt
to alienate those of us who believe in FOSS from that project, as if there is
something wrong with us. That is not helpful.
It is very shortsighted to believe that the best interest of a project remains
with the original. It may or may not, depends on the circumstances--the
quality of the code and so forth. It is a myth that only the originators of
a technology can make the best version. The history of computing disagrees
with this attitude, no matter how many people seem to believe it.
To better the software requires a different attitude, an open attitude. A
closed Yahoo group, with censoring, kicking people off. GPL violations.
Negative attitude towards FOSS, even after numerous messages and
an apparent change. These kinds of things really do not shout free and
open to me in any measure.
I'm sure all this babbling has run its course for most on this list. That
is why we can move discussions to my list, where everyone can argue
to their heart's content. Or you can join the Improvisor Google group
(http://groups.google.com/group/improvisor). I let anyone join and have
tried to put the settings as low as possible to keep it very open. This
is not what you are seeing with Impro-Visor. This is a clue that things
really have not changed that much on that side. Otherwise, access
would be open on that group and people would be allowed to speak
freely on it. Now let's see if access on that group suddenly opens
up.
Raymond
3:05 p.m.
New subject: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Raymond Martin <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday 03 August 2009 08:12:24 you wrote:
True most of the time ;)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Raymond Martin
<laseray(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I suggest that Raymond keep picking the GPL issues of Impro-Visor, till
everything is fixed. I'm not saying that Raymond should join now or that
he
can't have his fork, but I hope that at some
point Raymond can join the
Impro-Visor project and help improving Impro-Visor. Cause imho this will
be
the best for all parties including and especially
the end-user.
Hopes do not always come true. This case is probably one of those times
because someone else has made it next to impossible to help the original.
Take a little inventory. Kicked off group, when not even sending messages
to
it. Before that (last year), had messages censored due to differing ideas
(uphold GPL, distribute source, add improvements). A mailing list for the
SF
Impro-Visor project is created. What chance do I have of getting on that or
staying on it if allowed to join given the previous actions?
I think the changes to get on it is pretty high, if you and Prof Keller
takes time, also for dialogue. I think he is open for it.
So I have to
create my own list where I know I will be fair and let everyone have their
say.
Let us not forget the negative comments on that group that basically
attempt
to alienate those of us who believe in FOSS from that project, as if there
is
something wrong with us. That is not helpful.
You're right, but maybe it was a reaction on negative comments he got and
misunderstanding about GPL.
It is very shortsighted to believe that the best interest of a project
remains
with the original. It may or may not, depends on the circumstances--the
quality of the code and so forth. It is a myth that only the originators of
a technology can make the best version. The history of computing disagrees
with this attitude, no matter how many people seem to believe it.
You can join and make your improvements to Impro-Visor. If they not accept
it, we can see what the arguments are and if they're right or not.
I'm not interested in examples from the past though.
To better the software requires a different attitude, an open attitude. A
closed Yahoo group, with censoring, kicking people off. GPL violations.
Negative attitude towards FOSS, even after numerous messages and
an apparent change. These kinds of things really do not shout free and
open to me in any measure.
you're right. But you also have seen that the attitude of the project is
changing now, with the change it will reach a satisfying state for many of
us.
I'm sure all this babbling has run its course for most on this list. That
is why we can move discussions to my list, where everyone can argue
to their heart's content. Or you can join the Improvisor Google group
(http://groups.google.com/group/improvisor). I let anyone join and have
tried to put the settings as low as possible to keep it very open. This
is not what you are seeing with Impro-Visor.
Impro-Visor has launched an open mailinglist now.
Kind regards,
\r
2 Aug
2 Aug
6:52 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
The project now has a mailing list.
Hint, hint.
-dr
5:20 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Aug 2, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
And where are all the scripts, libraries, and so forth to create all
the
distributable packages. GPL stipulates that they must be included.
Thus there are packages that cannot be generated with the Ant build
file that is included. This is another GPL violation.
There is some problem with the NetBeans nbproject directory, that is
needed to make NetBeans recognize the project. It doesn't show up when
I check out the tree from subversion or in the browser, yet if I try
to add it, subversion says its already there. I've tried various
things to no avail. I will try various combinations of --force to get
it in.
Aside from this, I don't know about any missing scripts. There are
probably quite a few defunct objects in the build.xml, as I did not
have any time to clean this up. As the GPL states, there is no
warranty about anything in there.
Regards,
Bob
Robert M. Keller, Csilla & Walt Foley Professor of Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, California 91711
5:36 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Raymond Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday 02 August 2009 16:31:55 Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
All non-trivial code "needs a lot of fixing".
I suspect it would be more productive to ensure that the fixes and new
developments from various parties happen in the same place, so that
everyone can benefit from them -- and the obvious place for that is
the repository that is managed by the team that wrote the program so
far, since clearly they have proven capable (especially since there is
no suggestion that the program is unmaintained or no longer developed
by them).
But I imagine that there may be personal rather than technical
obstacles to that, and I quite understand that they can be significant
enough to be sometimes not worth trying to overcome.
It might be worth reiterating that under the GPL Bob's project is just
as welcome to draw from the forked project as the fork is to draw from
his.
Chris
I hope that you will continue to be motivated to
contribute to the
project now that Bob has released it to sf.net as that would appear to
be your main reason for forcing the issue.
No. I have previously stated that I have a separate project for this now.
I am also working on a fork, because after reviewing parts of the code
I realize, as any professional programmer would, that this really needs
a lot of fixing. I am already fixing some parts for my own use and later
they will be put out.
6:36 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:36:34 you wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Raymond
Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That argument holds little weight for me. Merely originating an application in
no way guarantees quality.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 16:31:55 Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
All non-trivial code "needs a lot of fixing".
I suspect it would be more productive to ensure that the fixes and new
developments from various parties happen in the same place, so that
everyone can benefit from them -- and the obvious place for that is
the repository that is managed by the team that wrote the program so
far, since clearly they have proven capable (especially since there is
no suggestion that the program is unmaintained or no longer developed
by them). I hope that you will continue to be motivated to
contribute to the
project now that Bob has released it to sf.net as that would appear to
be your main reason for forcing the issue.
No. I have previously stated that I have a separate project for this now.
I am also working on a fork, because after reviewing parts of the code
I realize, as any professional programmer would, that this really needs
a lot of fixing. I am already fixing some parts for my own use and later
they will be put out.
But I imagine that there may be personal rather than technical
obstacles to that, and I quite understand that they can be significant
enough to be sometimes not worth trying to overcome.
It might be worth reiterating that under the GPL Bob's project is just
as welcome to draw from the forked project as the fork is to draw from
his.
This certainly is the case. And I would not have it any other way. Of course,
it goes without saying that use of other peoples code in your application,
to create a fork or to improve an original with code from a fork, requires
proper attention to adding the relevant copyrights in accord with the GPL.
So if you use it, make sure you do it right.
Raymond
5587
days inactive
5588
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
29 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Chris Cannam -
Christian Ohm -
David Robillard -
Fons Adriaensen -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
keller -
laseray＠gmail.com -
Patrick Shirkey -
Ralf Mardorf -
Raymond Martin
-
rosea grammostola