8 Aug
2009
8 Aug
'09
6:33 a.m.
On Friday 07 August 2009 20:10:14 you wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Martin
<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial interests, the program is
non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything
to be done about this for creating a free program from a free program.
Maybe you should check the fact that there is already another program called
improvisor that exists that is not Impro-Visor, it is a commercial company
that could claim trademark infringement against Impro-Visor.
So if anybody is in a problem it will be Impro-Visor first.
Raymond
Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF
documentation somewhere
exactly
about this point and they vehemently disagree with any attitude like
that. We
all know very well the situation of Emacs, Xemacs, and various other
forks.
The FSF is not the law. I suggest you look up Trademark Law to realize why
you are wrong, and why you are subject to a lawsuit for knowingly creating
a product that is infringing on an already existing trademark(Regeristered
or Unregeristered would make a small, but only small, difference in this
case), and can easily be confused as such. In fact the case against
forcing you to change it is rather strong because not only is your product
nearly identical in name, it is nearly identical in function and can be
easily confused with the original. 
8 Aug
8 Aug
12:34 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Raymond Martin <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial
interests, the program is
non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything
to be done about this for creating a free program from a free program.
Sorry you are incorrect. Then again you have shown a strong desire not to
admit when this is the case in past discussions, so I don't expect you to
change your mind.
Trademarks apply to any product, be it software or physical, or company. A
trademark is simply an identifying mark that differentiates something from
the competition. This applies to Open Source software just the same as it
does any other.
Maybe you should check the fact that there is already
another program
called
improvisor that exists that is not Impro-Visor, it is a commercial company
that could claim trademark infringement against Impro-Visor.
Possibly, I don't know the situation or history with those products. It is
completely seperate from this situation however.
So if anybody is in a problem it will be Impro-Visor first.
No, it will be whoever decides to defend their trademark first.
There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the front
even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS
are just as bad as
software patents. Too bad most people do not get that.
That is your opinion. I would disagree, very strongly in fact.
Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS, the
creative commons
should be forced as an agreement or something similar to this.
Once again, see what i already wrote. If a company does not defend its
trademark, then the rights to that trademark are lost. Trademarks HAVE to
be defended to remain valid. Thus forcing the CC isn't really an option as
much as I enjoy the concept of the CC licensing.
Trademarks can only be in violation when they are on similar things.
Once again, WRONG. Trademark violations are when the use of a similar
name, logo, image, etc. causes confusion with the original product. The
products don't necessarily HAVE to be similar, just cause confusion with the
trademark.
Something funny about confusing names. For my needs jconv can be a very
good audio application and a very useless Japanese
code conversion.
Which is why this does not apply as a trademark issue, it does not cause
confusion with either products.
So this would not be okay in Germany only, if there was a trademark
applicable in Germany.
Wrong, see above.
Then Bob is guilty first and my project name is just due to his applications
name. Who is more guilty, a single person trying to do
FOSS or a professor
and educational institution that should be in a better position and act
more
appropriately? If my name is similar to theirs by derivation and that is
similar to the commercial one, then Bob and his ilk have unclean hands
before
I ever made a project.
Yes someone else did something wrong, I am just copying them so I must be in
the right. That is EXACTLY it. /sarcasm
Seriously, you need to understand what you are writing about much better
before you spout off drivel as fact. I am not a lawyer, but I obviously
understand trademark law much better than you do. Not only that as a moral
or ethical issue which you seem to think you are taking the high ground on,
this is just wrong.
Since there is so much confusion surrounding how copyrights work
in FOSS, it should be no surprise that similar
misunderstandings exist
for trademarks in the same situation.
The irony is amazing.
This is FOSS, not commercial enterprise,
things do not need to operate exactly the same as in proprietary
situations. That goes as much for trademarks as it does for copyrights.
Idealogoically you are correct. However the same LAWS apply to both.
They made all kinds of crazy claims
and did not understand how futile it is for one FOSS
project to try
to go after another one. I still have my similar name even though
they have a trademark. Trademarks are for commercial interest.
I am going to stop repeating myself correcting you on trademarks.
Claimed infringements on trademarks have to show that the existence
of a similarly named product causes or potentially
causes damage
to the trademark holders product, company, bottom line, and so on.
Or confusion in the marketplace with that product.
I suggest you read up...
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
Specifically this part...
"
7. What constitutes trademark
infringement?<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.h…
If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue
subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114,
1125<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1114.html>ml>.
The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a
trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if
it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or
as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether
consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a
number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the
proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of
actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the
degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's
intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820
(1961)<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/pola…
.
"
Note that damage to sales is not mentioned as a factor.
At this point I am done with this topic, Harvard has said anything I could
on the topic in a pretty clear article linked to above, and I certainly take
their word on this well above Raymond's.
Seablade
1:27 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 you wrote:
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Raymond Martin
<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial
interests, the program is
non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything
to be done about this for creating a free program from a free program.
Sorry you are incorrect. Then again you have shown a strong desire not to
admit when this is the case in past discussions, so I don't expect you to
change your mind.
Trademarks apply to any product, be it software or physical, or company. A
trademark is simply an identifying mark that differentiates something from
the competition. This applies to Open Source software just the same as it
does any other.
Maybe you should check the fact that there is
already another program
called
improvisor that exists that is not Impro-Visor, it is a commercial
company that could claim trademark infringement against Impro-Visor.
Possibly, I don't know the situation or history with those products. It is
completely seperate from this situation however.
So if anybody is in a problem it will be
Impro-Visor first.
No, it will be whoever decides to defend their trademark first.
There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the front
even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in
FOSS are just as bad as
software patents. Too bad most people do not get that.
That is your opinion. I would disagree, very strongly in fact.
Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS,
the creative commons
should be forced as an agreement or something similar to this.
Once again, see what i already wrote. If a company does not defend its
trademark, then the rights to that trademark are lost. Trademarks HAVE to
be defended to remain valid. Thus forcing the CC isn't really an option as
much as I enjoy the concept of the CC licensing.
Trademarks can only be in violation when they are on similar things.
Once again, WRONG. Trademark violations are when the use of a similar
name, logo, image, etc. causes confusion with the original product. The
products don't necessarily HAVE to be similar, just cause confusion with
the trademark.
Something funny about confusing names. For my needs jconv can be a very
good audio application and a very useless
Japanese code conversion.
Which is why this does not apply as a trademark issue, it does not cause
confusion with either products.
So this would not be okay in Germany only, if there was a trademark
> applicable in Germany. Wrong, see above.
No, you need an international trademark to have it apply in all countries.
Trademark laws are different in different places. A company or whoever
must register their trademark internationally to have it apply in all
locations. Having it one country does not automatically extend it to others.
Go check SF policy on trademarks. They do not deal with them because
they differ from place to place.
Then Bob is guilty first and my project name is just due to his
applications
There is actually nothing wrong, but if there were he would be guilty first.
No trademark infringement of even the least kind has occurred on my
part. Try to show any different. You cannot.
name. Who is more guilty, a single person trying
to do FOSS or a
professor and educational institution that should be in a better position
and act more
appropriately? If my name is similar to theirs by derivation and that is
similar to the commercial one, then Bob and his ilk have unclean hands
before
I ever made a project.
Yes someone else did something wrong, I am just copying them so I must be
in the right. That is EXACTLY it. /sarcasm
Seriously, you need to understand what you are writing about much better
before you spout off drivel as fact. I am not a lawyer, but I obviously
understand trademark law much better than you do. Not only that as a moral
or ethical issue which you seem to think you are taking the high ground on,
this is just wrong.
I only have a project called Improvisor, no software, no products. Even if
there were the least chance of infringement it would all be directed at
the Impro-Visor program not a remote SF project with no products of
its own.
Claimed infringements on trademarks have to show that the existence
Try googling "fireball" and see how many things have that name as a company or
product. They aren't attacking each other over it. I have an old quantum
fireball disk drive and there is fireball whisky. They aren't going to file
trademark infringement cases against each other over this, ever.
Obviously, you do not understand trademarks much.
of a similarly named product causes or
potentially causes damage
to the trademark holders product, company, bottom line, and so on.
Or confusion in the marketplace with that product. I suggest you read up...
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
Specifically this part...
"
7. What constitutes trademark
infringement?<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.h…
toc>
If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue
subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114,
1125<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1114.html>ml>.
The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of
a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement
if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods
or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether
consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a
number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the
proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of
actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the
degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's
intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820
(1961)<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/pola…
id.htm> .
"
Note that damage to sales is not mentioned as a factor.
Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
Something has to be for sale for there to be any infringement. Harvard law
shows that I am right in the case of free software to not bother with
trademark concerns.
Did you actually read the line "the use of a trademark in connection with the
sale of a good constitutes infringement"?
That was a very long post just to have your own proof contradict you.
Raymond
2:07 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork
of the project continues active development while the institute
continues to develop their version then there will definitely be
confused users at some point down the line.
Can't you just change the name and leave this debate in the dust?
I understand that you have put in a lot of effort to get this far but
now you are risking your rep by making a stand on a name that you didn't
originate and therefore shouldn't feel any real attachment to.
Cheers.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
2:19 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that.
There is no fork, it does not exist. There is only a project with
a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked program, no
forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor changes in the
Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make it better for others
so they would not end up violating the GPL. I guess that was selfish.
Yes this would apply for the commercial product
against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork
of the project continues active development while the institute
continues to develop their version then there will definitely be
confused users at some point down the line. Can't you just change the name and leave this
debate in the dust?
I do not have to change the name of a non-existing entity, do I?!
I understand that you have put in a lot of effort to
get this far but
now you are risking your rep by making a stand on a name that you didn't
originate and therefore shouldn't feel any real attachment to.
Wasn't much effort, haven't even begun really.
What rep? No rep.
Nobody knows what I am doing or going to do, except maybe my better
half. Why project the future which does not exist. There is not really
even a seed to comment on yet.
Everybody seems to be going way overboard from my perspective.
Nothing there to comment on really. No fork, no violations, no trademark
issues, nothing. Why are we talking about nothing?
Raymond
2:26 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
I think you may have confused the issue by stating at the very start of
this set of thread that you were going to fork the project and that you
had reverse engineered the binaries.
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that.
Yes this would apply for the commercial product
against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork
of the project continues active development while the institute
continues to develop their version then there will definitely be
confused users at some point down the line.
There is no fork, it does not exist. There is only a
project with
a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked program, no
forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor changes in the
Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make it better for others
so they would not end up violating the GPL.
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
I guess that was selfish.
You are putting the words in your own mouth here. There's no need to
suggest this even as a joke. I certainly haven't suggested it is the case.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
2:31 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 you wrote:
A fork of an application is an application. What else could it be?
All I am saying, very clearly I might add, is that there is no application
that could be considered a fork and that is what all the discussions
are about.
I better not use sarcasm, only others are allowed to do that to me.
Raymond
On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
I would have to look back to see if I actually wrote "fork the project"
or if I wrote fork Impro-Visor. In any case, it is the application that
is important, not the idea of a project.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
I think you may have confused the issue by stating at the very start of
this set of thread that you were going to fork the project and that you
had reverse engineered the binaries. On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that. Yes this would apply for the commercial product
against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork
of the project continues active development while the institute
continues to develop their version then there will definitely be
confused users at some point down the line. There is no
fork, it does not exist. There is only a project with
a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked program,
no forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor changes in the
Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make it better for
others so they would not end up violating the GPL.
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts? I guess that
was selfish.
You are putting the words in your own mouth here. There's no need to
suggest this even as a joke. I certainly haven't suggested it is the case.
2:36 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 08/09/2009 04:39 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
A fork of an application is an application. What else could it be?
All I am saying, very clearly I might add, is that there is no application
that could be considered a fork and that is what all the discussions
are about.
So you have distributed a binary and the code that goes with as well as
making (minor) changes to the code including attributing copyright to
the various original authors in a way that wasn't done with the version
of the application that you reverse engineered and that is not a fork?
What is a fork if not all the above?
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
I better not use sarcasm, only others are allowed to do that to me.
Raymond
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 you wrote:
What is the difference?
On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
I would have to look back to see if I actually wrote "fork the project"
or if I wrote fork Impro-Visor. In any case, it is the application that
is important, not the idea of a project.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
I think you may have confused the issue by stating at the very start of
this set of thread that you were going to fork the project and that you
had reverse engineered the binaries.
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
> Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that
> are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
>
Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork
of the project continues active development while the institute
continues to develop their version then there will definitely be
confused users at some point down the line.
There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that.
There is no fork, it does not exist. There is only a
project with
a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked program,
no forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor changes in the
Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make it better for
others so they would not end up violating the GPL.
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
I guess that was selfish.
You are putting the words in your own mouth here. There's no need to
suggest this even as a joke. I certainly haven't suggested it is the case.
2:49 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:35:13 you wrote:
A fork of an application is an application. What else could it be?
All I am saying, very clearly I might add, is that there is no
application that could be considered a fork and that is what all the
discussions are about.
So you have distributed a binary and the code that goes with as well as
making (minor) changes to the code including attributing copyright to
the various original authors in a way that wasn't done with the version
of the application that you reverse engineered and that is not a fork?
Wrong. The original code was distributed by the Impro-Visor project
for any and all version on my SF project. Go check their SF project
and see. Jumping to conclusions a little bit there, aren't you?
The only changes I made were to add a readme file with some
more instructions, that make more sense than the original. And
alter the Ant build file so output is more sensible and does not
cause other potential problems. That can hardly be considered a fork,
none of the source code was touched. At most it might be considered
packaging or a patch.
On 08/09/2009 04:39 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
A computer program to which the license applies! The license does
not and cannot be applied to a "project". A project can be many things
in many different ways. Source code is only one thing and the binary
produced another thing directly related to the first.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 you wrote:
What is the difference? On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
I would have to look back to see if I actually wrote "fork the project"
or if I wrote fork Impro-Visor. In any case, it is the application that
is important, not the idea of a project. On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
> On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
>> Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others
>> that are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing
>> is sold.
>
> Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your
> fork of the project continues active development while the institute
> continues to develop their version then there will definitely be
> confused users at some point down the line.
There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write
that.
I think you may have confused the issue by stating at the very start of
this set of thread that you were going to fork the project and that you
had reverse engineered the binaries. There is no fork, it does not exist. There is only a
project with
a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked
program, no forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor
changes in the Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make
it better for others so they would not end up violating the GPL.
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
What is a fork if not all the above?
A fork is altered source code and other changes that really affect the
programs operation or changes to application name or related that
show it actually is a different version from the original.
All Linux applications that are packaged as RPM, deb and so forth
would be forks if minor things were seen as constituting a fork.
Each would be violating trademarks to some people then. Are they?
Raymond
3:44 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork?
Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this point
at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is the
original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with new text
documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking either of the
projects.)
all the best,
drew
3:50 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
So this is a pre fork or a split or a bend but not an outright fork?
IMO, it's so close to a fork as to be almost negligible.
It's all the ground work in place but none of the follow through.
It's like a "psyche" intended to frighten the recipient without actually
doing anything specific?
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a
fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this point
at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is the
original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with new text
documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking either of the
projects.)
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
4:01 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Yeah, the ground shakes and you get all frightened, but not much happens,
yet!
The Impro-Visor code is out and on SF, so it worked, didn't it.
Raymond
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
So this is a pre fork or a split or a bend but not an outright fork?
IMO, it's so close to a fork as to be almost negligible.
It's all the ground work in place but none of the follow through.
It's like a "psyche" intended to frighten the recipient without actually
doing anything specific?
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a
fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this
point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is
the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with
new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking
either of the projects.)
4:05 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 08/09/2009 06:10 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
If that was your intention then yes.
So now you are the official watchdog of the improvisor code? If they
step out of line again you will be right there to get them back on track
even if you have to force the issue with your cape and a trusty spork at
your side?
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Yeah, the ground shakes and you get all frightened, but not much happens,
yet!
The Impro-Visor code is out and on SF, so it worked, didn't it.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
So this is a pre fork or a split or a bend but not an outright fork?
IMO, it's so close to a fork as to be almost negligible.
It's all the ground work in place but none of the follow through.
It's like a "psyche" intended to frighten the recipient without actually
doing anything specific?
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a
fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this
point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is
the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with
new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking
either of the projects.)
4:13 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 16:04:43 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 06:10 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
I also have a little hickory stick for application as needed.
Whip it good, dana nana nah!
Raymond
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
If that was your intention then yes.
So now you are the official watchdog of the improvisor code? If they
step out of line again you will be right there to get them back on track
even if you have to force the issue with your cape and a trusty spork at
your side?
On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Yeah, the ground shakes and you get all frightened, but not much happens,
yet!
The Impro-Visor code is out and on SF, so it worked, didn't it. On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
> Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
> that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required
> for making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
> forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
> result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this
point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists
is the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along
with new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from
checking either of the projects.)
So this is a pre fork or a split or a bend but not an outright fork?
IMO, it's so close to a fork as to be almost negligible.
It's all the ground work in place but none of the follow through.
It's like a "psyche" intended to frighten the recipient without actually
doing anything specific?
3:57 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
There is no decompiled source anywhere on the project. It is all code
straight from the original Impro-Visor on SF.
Raymond
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a
fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this
point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is
the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with new
text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking either of
the projects.)
4 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 08/09/2009 06:05 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts
wrote:
Ok, Just to get this straight in my head.
After you decompiled the code and threatened to put the results of your
labour online as a fork which encouraged Bob Keller to finally publish
the code in a public repo you have now taken that code and changed it
just a little bit, given it exactly the same name and are hosting it at
the same location as the official public release?
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
There is no decompiled source anywhere on the project. It is all code
straight from the original Impro-Visor on SF.
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a
fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this
point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is
the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with new
text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking either of
the projects.)
Raymond
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
4:11 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:59:56 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 06:05 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
That is what is there for now. So lots of people have been complaining about
nothing.
Raymond
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts
wrote:
Ok, Just to get this straight in my head.
After you decompiled the code and threatened to put the results of your
labour online as a fork which encouraged Bob Keller to finally publish
the code in a public repo you have now taken that code and changed it
just a little bit, given it exactly the same name and are hosting it at
the same location as the official public release? On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
There is no decompiled source anywhere on the project. It is all code
straight from the original Impro-Visor on SF. Sorry but how exactly is this different from a
fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this
point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists
is the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along
with new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from
checking either of the projects.) 
9 Aug
9 Aug
7:25 a.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 8/8/2009, "Raymond Martin" <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:59:56 you wrote:
When is the Raymond show moving to the improvisor mailing lists? Not all
of us have the luxury of email filtering and are too simple minded and
undisciplined to continually resist temptation every goddamn hour to see
if our anti-hero is going to admit to ever being wrong.
On 08/09/2009 06:05 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
That is what is there for now. So lots of people have been complaining about
nothing.
Raymond On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts
wrote:
Ok, Just to get this straight in my head.
After you decompiled the code and threatened to put the results of your
labour online as a fork which encouraged Bob Keller to finally publish
the code in a public repo you have now taken that code and changed it
just a little bit, given it exactly the same name and are hosting it at
the same location as the official public release? On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
> Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
> that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
> making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
> forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
> result of your efforts?
Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this
point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists
is the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along
with new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from
checking either of the projects.)
There is no decompiled source anywhere on the project. It is all code
straight from the original Impro-Visor on SF.
8 Aug
8 Aug
3:19 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 Thomas Vecchione wrote:
he standard is "likelihood of confusion." To
be more specific, the use of a
trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if
it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or
as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods.
I think Raymond may be keying on the "sale of a good" phrase and indicating
that at least with some Free Software, no good is for *sale*.
Thoughts?
drew
3:21 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:19:09 drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 Thomas Vecchione
wrote:
I thought that was obvious from my comments and the law text itself. No?
Raymond
he standard is "likelihood of
confusion." To be more specific, the use of
a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes
infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source
of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods.
I think Raymond may be keying on the "sale of a good" phrase and indicating
that at least with some Free Software, no good is for *sale*.
3:37 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 08/09/2009 05:30 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:19:09 drew Roberts
wrote:
If a company had the will or capacity they could drag someone through
court for giving away a product that had their trademark on it for
giving people a false impression of the original goods. However if there
is no money to be earned then it is unlikely. After all didn't those
people in the UK gets sued for something similar by McDonalds?
Something along the lines of Trademark infringement and willful damage
to reputation. They ended up taking years to clear the case by which
time they had been made pretty much bankrupt.
Although IIRC in the end they won and McD's had to pay out instead.
So maybe it's worth the effort.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 Thomas
Vecchione wrote:
I thought that was obvious from my comments and the law text itself. No?
he standard is "likelihood of
confusion." To be more specific, the use of
a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes
infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source
of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods.
I think Raymond may be keying on the "sale of a good" phrase and
indicating
that at least with some Free Software, no good is for *sale*.
Raymond
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
4:58 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:30:26 Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:19:09 drew Roberts
wrote:
I find we (people) often miss key points unless they are specifically pointed
out. Just trying to do my bit to see that we are actually understanding one
another so we can see what real disagreements remain. I find we (people
again) often think they disagree on more than they actually do due to
misunderstandings. Or they agree on some things they think they disagree on
and disagree on some things they think they agree on.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 Thomas
Vecchione wrote:
I thought that was obvious from my comments and the law text itself. No? he standard is "likelihood of
confusion." To be more specific, the use
of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes
infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the
source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such
goods.
I think Raymond may be keying on the "sale of a good" phrase and
indicating that at least with some Free Software, no good is for *sale*.
Raymond
all the best,
drew
5:08 p.m.
New subject: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
drew Roberts wrote:
I find we (people) often miss key points unless they
are specifically pointed
out. Just trying to do my bit to see that we are actually understanding one
another so we can see what real disagreements remain. I find we (people
again) often think they disagree on more than they actually do due to
misunderstandings. Or they agree on some things they think they disagree on
and disagree on some things they think they agree on.
My comment: :)
And in addition: Talking to each other often causes less
misunderstandings than writing.
5740
days inactive
5741
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
23 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Chris Cannam -
drew Roberts -
james morris -
Patrick Shirkey -
Ralf Mardorf -
Raymond Martin -
Thomas Vecchione