28 Jul
2009
28 Jul
'09
10:01 a.m.
Just on a more serious note, amidst all this mayhem and frivolity, we
forked a project recently to more specifically add and modify a set of
tools for a defined purpose.
Unlike this trainwreck, we not only tried our best to do so in a
decent way, but the original author was thoroughly civilised about it,
and showed a lot of class in his positive and encouraging responses.
I certainly learned a lot from the process, and have even more respect
for Chris (Cannam) as a result.
It goes without saying that if Chris can use anything we write, then
he's most welcome to do so, and has our encouragement as well.
There's a way to do this that doesn't involve throwing digital
hatchets or burning anyone at the stake.
Alex.
www.openoctave.org
midi-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
development-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
--
www.openoctave.org
midi-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
development-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
28 Jul
28 Jul
10:06 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
alex stone wrote:
Just on a more serious note, amidst all this mayhem
and frivolity, we
forked a project recently to more specifically add and modify a set of
tools for a defined purpose.
Unlike this trainwreck, we not only tried our best to do so in a
decent way, but the original author was thoroughly civilised about it,
and showed a lot of class in his positive and encouraging responses.
I certainly learned a lot from the process, and have even more respect
for Chris (Cannam) as a result.
It goes without saying that if Chris can use anything we write, then
he's most welcome to do so, and has our encouragement as well.
There's a way to do this that doesn't involve throwing digital
hatchets or burning anyone at the stake.
I guess you are talking about Rosegarden and openoctave as a 'fork'...
11:11 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:01:36 alex stone wrote:
Just on a more serious note, amidst all this mayhem
and frivolity, we
forked a project recently to more specifically add and modify a set of
tools for a defined purpose.
Unlike this trainwreck, we not only tried our best to do so in a
decent way, but the original author was thoroughly civilised about it,
and showed a lot of class in his positive and encouraging responses.
I certainly learned a lot from the process, and have even more respect
for Chris (Cannam) as a result.
It goes without saying that if Chris can use anything we write, then
he's most welcome to do so, and has our encouragement as well.
There's a way to do this that doesn't involve throwing digital
hatchets or burning anyone at the stake.
Yes, but that could not be done in this case. Seemingly, people have not
been paying attention. The nice approach was tried almost a year ago now.
The same obnoxious attitude persists now with the original Impro-Visor side
of things, so action had to be taken. When doing the right thing causes
people to almost line up against the one in the right, what does that say
about those people? Some have not. My thanks go to them, for actually having
properly read the GPL and understanding the obligations involved.
For others, I believe they are all having some kind of residual effect left
over from childhood when parents and adults told them to never quarrel
or fight. As if all such attitudes can only lead to bad outcomes. The fact
is that civilized societies are built on argument, debate. That is how laws
are put into place to make life better. People must argue to make
improvements, else we will all be at the mercy of a few with all the power
deciding unfairly what is right or wrong for all of us. As opposed to having a
democratic process in place that is not supposed to discriminate without
proper cause. Try to get past this idea that all arguments are bad, they
aren't. They lead to results you won't get if you just sit around on your
hands. Such is what happened in this case.
If I had interacted with someone like Chris, that would have been great,
then things would certainly have worked out better. But that is not the case.
I work on other FOSS projects, and aside from one other projects, I have never
had any problems like this. The other people I interact with are willing to
discuss things, clearly, openly, logically, and without resorting to personal
attacks on my character. Disagreements do occur from time to time, but they
just do not have the same self-inflated and arrogant motivation I have
experience with Impro-Visor.
There are lots of projects out there that pretend to be FOSS, using GPL
or whatever license. Then when you try to do what you are allowed
they react in a very proprietary manner. So there is a phenomena at play with
this--some developers riding the free software wagon just so they can claim to
be doing that, to get recognition, boost their egos, or whatever.
Learn to see this people. It is very scummy behavior that deserves no less
than being attacked and shamed into compliance. In fact, these are the exact
tactics that various GPL legal defender organizations use. So what I have done
is completely inline with them. Anybody who thinks otherwise has not done
their homework. So please go do some research before putting in your
comments that fall on the side of defending a violator. Never mind the
warm fuzzy feelings you want, get results. Impro-Visor has made it
impossible to cooperate, never mind the seemingly nice attitude pretentiously
given by those on that side about the issue. Only the facts count.
And the fact remains that Impro-Visor is still violating the GPL. Go check
for yourself, don't take my word for it. You will know who is really right
when you realize that this is a consistent pattern of behavior on their
part. Don't be fooled by childish excuses that sound like someone telling
their primary school teacher they forgot their homework. Responsibility
first, responsibility!
Raymond
P.S. Bob kicked me off his Yahoo group with this "new" release he just made.
Why would he do that? He never let me post any message previously without
censoring or dumping them. So I haven't even sent any that might be
questionable to him since last year because of this. He is just trying to
prevent me from getting at the files he is releasing. Apparently he must be
afraid of something or doing something wrong. And he is, GPL violations still
exist on that group with this release. Go check for yourselves.
Can you see more now the kind of person he is?
11:51 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday, 28 July 2009 at 9:19, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
When doing the right thing causes people to almost
line up against the one in
the right [...]
People don't oppose you for "doing the right thing", but for being a
self-righteous pompous a** who doesn't know when to shut up while doing it.
Can you see more now the kind of person he is?
Mainly people see what kind of person you are.
*puts his cluebat away and hides again*
12:02 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 09:50:56 Christian Ohm wrote:
What, a defender of the GPL. Oh, that is bad. Loser.
See people this is the kind of lame-brained people that respond because
they never learnt how to debate and do the right thing. They add nothing
positive to help, just criticize those who are actually doing something
about a problem. Very whimpy.
Raymond
On Tuesday, 28 July 2009 at 9:19, laseray(a)gmail.com
wrote:
No, that is you now. For speaking out of turn. Can only respond to a few
little points, bypassing all the truth in the process. Very typical of the
kind of people that keep responding negatively.
I will NEVER shut up when I am right. Anybody who expects another to do so
is very arrogant indeed. It is people like you who make the world a bad place
for others. Not willing to defend the right, just try to assassinate their
character. How very weak.
When doing the right thing causes people to
almost line up against the
one in the right [...]
People don't oppose you for "doing the right thing", but for being a
self-righteous pompous a** who doesn't know when to shut up while doing it. Can you see
more now the kind of person he is?
Mainly people see what kind of person you are.
11:57 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
I'm not taking sides here, but there's also something to keep in mind.
The GPL isn't a tool to beat people around the head with. And here,
probably more than any other GPL based community, there's a lot of
knowhow, and experience, in dealing with GPL matters. Sometimes things
get out of hand, but there's enough sane voices to bring some degree
of reason to the discussion.
From what's been posted, it seems the original
author may not have
been aware of the GPL and its important implications. Up until
18
months ago, i never knew it existed, and after only after my adventure
in Linux and opensource began, did it sit down and take in what it
means. It's not to be taken lightly, and for whatever reason, an
author of an application or code may want to reflect for some time,
before taking the plunge or not.
Forking a project is by it's nature, and GPL "rights" aside, quite an
impact on the author. He or she may have been sweating over their code
base for some time, and i don't think anyone could say they wouldn't
feel a bit awkward if they saw their code being forked, and developed
further. Even more so for those who may not have developed their code
under the assumption of GPL. From an "outsider's" point of view, it
would seem like a big decision to take both ways, if both parties have
any sort of empathy.
You seem to be legally correct in the position you've taken, so no
argument there.
From a human communication point of view, i would dare
say most
authors would feel a bit put out by your manner, and the enthusiasm
with which you've gleefully "grabbed" the code, and waved the GPL
flag. It certainly looks that way from here.
I'm not throwing rocks at you, or as i wrote, taking sides. But waving
the license alone doesn't provide a "getout" clause to put aside basic
decent behaviour. If the author wasn't aware of the implications of
the GPL on his code, he certainly will be now, and maybe that's a good
thing. But the approach could have been handled differently. Maybe if
you'd taken the time and effort to explain what the GPL implied, then
the author, armed with this information, may have been more
forthcoming.
you obviously wanted the code for this particular project, and wanted
it fairly certainly it seems.
Verbally bludgeoning people into submission, and getting extremely
personal, to get your way, may not be the right approach.
Alex.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:19 PM, <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:01:36 alex stone wrote:
--
www.openoctave.org
midi-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
development-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
Just on a more serious note, amidst all this
mayhem and frivolity, we
forked a project recently to more specifically add and modify a set of
tools for a defined purpose.
Unlike this trainwreck, we not only tried our best to do so in a
decent way, but the original author was thoroughly civilised about it,
and showed a lot of class in his positive and encouraging responses.
I certainly learned a lot from the process, and have even more respect
for Chris (Cannam) as a result.
It goes without saying that if Chris can use anything we write, then
he's most welcome to do so, and has our encouragement as well.
There's a way to do this that doesn't involve throwing digital
hatchets or burning anyone at the stake.
Yes, but that could not be done in this case. Seemingly, people have not
been paying attention. The nice approach was tried almost a year ago now.
The same obnoxious attitude persists now with the original Impro-Visor side
of things, so action had to be taken. When doing the right thing causes
people to almost line up against the one in the right, what does that say
about those people? Some have not. My thanks go to them, for actually having
properly read the GPL and understanding the obligations involved.
For others, I believe they are all having some kind of residual effect left
over from childhood when parents and adults told them to never quarrel
or fight. As if all such attitudes can only lead to bad outcomes. The fact
is that civilized societies are built on argument, debate. That is how laws
are put into place to make life better. People must argue to make
improvements, else we will all be at the mercy of a few with all the power
deciding unfairly what is right or wrong for all of us. As opposed to having a
democratic process in place that is not supposed to discriminate without
proper cause. Try to get past this idea that all arguments are bad, they
aren't. They lead to results you won't get if you just sit around on your
hands. Such is what happened in this case.
If I had interacted with someone like Chris, that would have been great,
then things would certainly have worked out better. But that is not the case.
I work on other FOSS projects, and aside from one other projects, I have never
had any problems like this. The other people I interact with are willing to
discuss things, clearly, openly, logically, and without resorting to personal
attacks on my character. Disagreements do occur from time to time, but they
just do not have the same self-inflated and arrogant motivation I have
experience with Impro-Visor.
There are lots of projects out there that pretend to be FOSS, using GPL
or whatever license. Then when you try to do what you are allowed
they react in a very proprietary manner. So there is a phenomena at play with
this--some developers riding the free software wagon just so they can claim to
be doing that, to get recognition, boost their egos, or whatever.
Learn to see this people. It is very scummy behavior that deserves no less
than being attacked and shamed into compliance. In fact, these are the exact
tactics that various GPL legal defender organizations use. So what I have done
is completely inline with them. Anybody who thinks otherwise has not done
their homework. So please go do some research before putting in your
comments that fall on the side of defending a violator. Never mind the
warm fuzzy feelings you want, get results. Impro-Visor has made it
impossible to cooperate, never mind the seemingly nice attitude pretentiously
given by those on that side about the issue. Only the facts count.
And the fact remains that Impro-Visor is still violating the GPL. Go check
for yourself, don't take my word for it. You will know who is really right
when you realize that this is a consistent pattern of behavior on their
part. Don't be fooled by childish excuses that sound like someone telling
their primary school teacher they forgot their homework. Responsibility
first, responsibility!
Raymond
P.S. Bob kicked me off his Yahoo group with this "new" release he just made.
Why would he do that? He never let me post any message previously without
censoring or dumping them. So I haven't even sent any that might be
questionable to him since last year because of this. He is just trying to
prevent me from getting at the files he is releasing. Apparently he must be
afraid of something or doing something wrong. And he is, GPL violations still
exist on that group with this release. Go check for yourselves.
Can you see more now the kind of person he is?
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
12:22 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 09:57:55 you wrote:
I'm not taking sides here, but there's also
something to keep in mind.
The GPL isn't a tool to beat people around the head with. And here,
probably more than any other GPL based community, there's a lot of
knowhow, and experience, in dealing with GPL matters. Sometimes things
get out of hand, but there's enough sane voices to bring some degree
of reason to the discussion.
GPL legal defender organizations disagree. They know more about it than
you or I.
From what's been posted, it seems the original author may not have
been aware of the GPL and its important implications. Up until 18
months ago, i never knew it existed, and after only after my adventure
in Linux and opensource began, did it sit down and take in what it
means. It's not to be taken lightly, and for whatever reason, an
author of an application or code may want to reflect for some time,
before taking the plunge or not.
More irrelevant information.
Forking a project is by it's nature, and GPL "rights" aside, quite an
impact on the author. He or she may have been sweating over their code
base for some time, and i don't think anyone could say they wouldn't
feel a bit awkward if they saw their code being forked, and developed
further. Even more so for those who may not have developed their code
under the assumption of GPL. From an "outsider's" point of view, it
would seem like a big decision to take both ways, if both parties have
any sort of empathy.
Irrelevant.
You seem to be legally correct in the position
you've taken, so no
argument there.
From a human communication point of view, i would dare say most
authors would feel a bit put out by your manner, and the enthusiasm
with which you've gleefully "grabbed" the code, and waved the GPL
flag. It certainly looks that way from here.
Too bad. Your view, as well as that of others, is terribly skewed towards
having nice words rather than truth. This is why many people are so easily
manipulated, they consistently fall for these tactics. I don't.
I'm not throwing rocks at you, or as i wrote,
taking sides. But waving
the license alone doesn't provide a "getout" clause to put aside basic
decent behaviour. If the author wasn't aware of the implications of
the GPL on his code, he certainly will be now, and maybe that's a good
thing. But the approach could have been handled differently. Maybe if
you'd taken the time and effort to explain what the GPL implied, then
the author, armed with this information, may have been more
forthcoming.
Already explained my position numbers of times, the reasons for this.
When are you going to stop beating me over the head with this attitude
BS. Get over it people. See the truth, the facts. Put everything else aside.
I have no obligation to be nice after the treatment I got.
Wake up people. I am not going to be nice about this situation, no matter
what anybody says. Been there, done that. Does not work. Finally hear
my words.
you obviously wanted the code for this particular project, and wanted
it fairly certainly it seems.
Verbally bludgeoning people into submission, and getting extremely
personal, to get your way, may not be the right approach.
It is the right approach here. Impro-Visor is now on SF. What part of
results do you not understand?
How long do you think it would have taken to get it up there if I were nice
about everything? Less time. No way. That guy said he was going to have
a new version out sometime last year, it did not happen. Recently, he
put something out, with no source. There is no way to tell from what he
did or said at that point when the source code would appear. My actions
have lead to it being put up sooner.
Actions speak louder than words.
So, again, people wake up and see what has happened here. A real solid
result has come about by means which some seem to oppose. The nice
approach was taken in the past and there were no results. Wake up people.
The more direct approach has resulted in something. If it were all up to you
naysayers there would be no source code out there.
So get with the program. Get over your needs for unnecessary niceness.
Some people don't deserve niceness and this based on their behavior.
The way my detractors keep acting makes me think they would never punish
criminals when they break the law.
It is really quite unrealistic to think that you can always get the results
you want by being nice. Reality disagrees with this all over the place.
Check your history, news, and so on. Do you people get out much or
what? There are some people in the world that are not so nice, and
they force you into a position where you must fight. So when you do
have that unfortunate situation come about, win. It is better to win
than be nice to abusers.
Wake up people. Tune into reality, not some imaginary utopia of
nice people all getting along. That is not the way things work in
many situations. It is not the way it works in FOSS, GPL, Linux vs.
Microsoft FUD, and on and on.
Raymond
12:40 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Raymond might be right or wrong.
I remember some mails were people recommended Raymond to be cool, even
if Bob might be wrong. I wonder why people now can't be cool, while they
guess Raymond is wrong!
So, even if Raymond should be wrong, why do you now blame him? Aren't
you able to follow you own recommendation you gave Raymond before?
You should be able to empathize Bob's emotions, if not you are just (a)
liar(s)!
My personal opinion is to see what will happen in the future. Bob should
get a chance and it doesn't matter if he had chances before or not, at
the same time I can't see any reason to blame Raymond.
There's a film with Spencer Tracy, the protagonist played by Spencer
Tracy said, that people should use any popular word that can be
understood by everyone, because there are too less words that can be
understood by everyone. Talking about a allegedly wrong chose of used
words is stupid. The fact is, that Bob ignored the GPL, another fact
seems to be that he's willing to consider with the GPL.
Is there any reason to blame anybody now? Even if somebody should be
wrong in your opinions, why can't you keep cool?
You recommended it Raymond before ...
!
Ralf
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 09:57:55 you wrote:
I'm not taking sides here, but there's
also something to keep in mind.
The GPL isn't a tool to beat people around the head with. And here,
probably more than any other GPL based community, there's a lot of
knowhow, and experience, in dealing with GPL matters. Sometimes things
get out of hand, but there's enough sane voices to bring some degree
of reason to the discussion.
GPL legal defender organizations disagree. They know more about it than
you or I.
From what's been posted, it seems the
original author may not have
been aware of the GPL and its important implications. Up until 18
months ago, i never knew it existed, and after only after my adventure
in Linux and opensource began, did it sit down and take in what it
means. It's not to be taken lightly, and for whatever reason, an
author of an application or code may want to reflect for some time,
before taking the plunge or not.
More irrelevant information.
Forking a project is by it's nature, and GPL
"rights" aside, quite an
impact on the author. He or she may have been sweating over their code
base for some time, and i don't think anyone could say they wouldn't
feel a bit awkward if they saw their code being forked, and developed
further. Even more so for those who may not have developed their code
under the assumption of GPL. From an "outsider's" point of view, it
would seem like a big decision to take both ways, if both parties have
any sort of empathy.
Irrelevant.
You seem to be legally correct in the position
you've taken, so no
argument there.
From a human communication point of view, i would dare say most
authors would feel a bit put out by your manner, and the enthusiasm
with which you've gleefully "grabbed" the code, and waved the GPL
flag. It certainly looks that way from here.
Too bad. Your view, as well as that of others, is terribly skewed towards
having nice words rather than truth. This is why many people are so easily
manipulated, they consistently fall for these tactics. I don't.
I'm not throwing rocks at you, or as i wrote,
taking sides. But waving
the license alone doesn't provide a "getout" clause to put aside basic
decent behaviour. If the author wasn't aware of the implications of
the GPL on his code, he certainly will be now, and maybe that's a good
thing. But the approach could have been handled differently. Maybe if
you'd taken the time and effort to explain what the GPL implied, then
the author, armed with this information, may have been more
forthcoming.
Already explained my position numbers of times, the reasons for this.
When are you going to stop beating me over the head with this attitude
BS. Get over it people. See the truth, the facts. Put everything else aside.
I have no obligation to be nice after the treatment I got.
Wake up people. I am not going to be nice about this situation, no matter
what anybody says. Been there, done that. Does not work. Finally hear
my words.
you obviously wanted the code for this particular
project, and wanted
it fairly certainly it seems.
Verbally bludgeoning people into submission, and getting extremely
personal, to get your way, may not be the right approach.
It is the right approach here. Impro-Visor is now on SF. What part of
results do you not understand?
How long do you think it would have taken to get it up there if I were nice
about everything? Less time. No way. That guy said he was going to have
a new version out sometime last year, it did not happen. Recently, he
put something out, with no source. There is no way to tell from what he
did or said at that point when the source code would appear. My actions
have lead to it being put up sooner.
Actions speak louder than words.
So, again, people wake up and see what has happened here. A real solid
result has come about by means which some seem to oppose. The nice
approach was taken in the past and there were no results. Wake up people.
The more direct approach has resulted in something. If it were all up to you
naysayers there would be no source code out there.
So get with the program. Get over your needs for unnecessary niceness.
Some people don't deserve niceness and this based on their behavior.
The way my detractors keep acting makes me think they would never punish
criminals when they break the law.
It is really quite unrealistic to think that you can always get the results
you want by being nice. Reality disagrees with this all over the place.
Check your history, news, and so on. Do you people get out much or
what? There are some people in the world that are not so nice, and
they force you into a position where you must fight. So when you do
have that unfortunate situation come about, win. It is better to win
than be nice to abusers.
Wake up people. Tune into reality, not some imaginary utopia of
nice people all getting along. That is not the way things work in
many situations. It is not the way it works in FOSS, GPL, Linux vs.
Microsoft FUD, and on and on.
Raymond
12:43 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
You should be able to empathize Bob's emotions, if
not you are just
(a) liar(s)!
Oops, Raymonds emotions :D ...
okay, Bob's too, but I was talking about Raymond's undertsandable emotions.
Sorry.
12:57 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 10:39:45 you wrote:
Raymond might be right or wrong.
I remember some mails were people recommended Raymond to be cool, even
if Bob might be wrong. I wonder why people now can't be cool, while they
guess Raymond is wrong!
So, even if Raymond should be wrong, why do you now blame him? Aren't
you able to follow you own recommendation you gave Raymond before?
You should be able to empathize Bob's emotions, if not you are just (a)
liar(s)!
My personal opinion is to see what will happen in the future. Bob should
get a chance and it doesn't matter if he had chances before or not, at
the same time I can't see any reason to blame Raymond.
There's a film with Spencer Tracy, the protagonist played by Spencer
Tracy said, that people should use any popular word that can be
understood by everyone, because there are too less words that can be
understood by everyone. Talking about a allegedly wrong chose of used
words is stupid. The fact is, that Bob ignored the GPL, another fact
seems to be that he's willing to consider with the GPL.
Is there any reason to blame anybody now? Even if somebody should be
wrong in your opinions, why can't you keep cool?
Well there is still a reason to blame, at this moment. Impro-Visor is
still violating the GPL and that is all there is too it.
All the rest of that emotional stuff about being nice is just showing
how superficial people are. They are swayed be surface issues rather
than real meaning. Mr. Keller is a professor at some institution and
originally developed this application, therefore superficial people
side with that. They have authority issues and bend over for those
they deem to be in positions of power. Poor little sheep.
Linus Torvalds says some weird off the wall things, some smart,
some nasty. It does not bother me at all. It does not bother these
superficial people either because he is the originator of Linux, thus
up on a pedestal compared to mere mortals for them.
Same thing would happen to me if I originate a unique application
or project and someone were making justified claims of wrong doing
against me. These protests about my attitude would not even exist
and they would incorrectly think I was at least a little in the right. People,
you do not know your own minds.
I am sure the majority of these people, as well as a large portion
of the general population, are easily manipulated by narcissists.
You know, those people who come along and light up a room. They
smile and tell you everything you want to hear, the way you want to
hear it. Then when they have you under their control and you turn
your back, you get a knife in it.
Pay attention and watch out for these types of people that won't
give you the raw straight truth.
Raymond
5:02 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
I am sure the majority of these people, as well as a
large portion
of the general population, are easily manipulated by narcissists.
I became what psychology is defame as a borderline personality, because
I need to survive my childhood living with malignant narcissists.
At the moment you are acting similar to the way I do very often. I
understand that you just want equity. Equity is a need of many gifted
people, some highly gifted children are doing a suicide because they
can't stand wrongfulness.
I guess you and I we are adults, we shouldn't and at the moment you
shouldn't waste too much time with clarifications. The more you do, the
less time people have to reflect their own behaviour. Being in a right
corner they only can argue with social graces.
Bob Keller at the moment is willing to comply with the GPL, it might be
a little bit late, but now he does, even if he needs still some time to
do it 100% perfect.
Any dispute now will end in nothing and I know that you know it ;).
Blowing of steam is fine, but content-related all positions are deadlocked.
We all know it and anyway we are still arguing. IMO everybody who is
still writing about this issue, me too ;), is stupid.
8:40 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 15:02:48 you wrote:
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
Bob Keller at the moment is willing to comply with the GPL, it might be
a little bit late, but now he does, even if he needs still some time to
do it 100% perfect.
Wrong! Now he still does not. Past two replies of mine show that.
I don't believe he will keep it up. He is just doing it now to quell
any controversy. Then later he will return to previous behavior.
Just like he did with preview release after I got him to release source
for 3.39 version last year.
Raymond
2:35 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
P.S. Bob kicked me off his Yahoo group with this "new" release he
just made.
Why would he do that? He never let me post any message previously
without
censoring or dumping them. So I haven't even sent any that might be
questionable to him since last year because of this. He is just
trying to
prevent me from getting at the files he is releasing. Apparently he
must be
afraid of something or doing something wrong. And he is, GPL
violations still
exist on that group with this release. Go check for yourselves.
Can you see more now the kind of person he is?
I blocked you last Friday, actually, when you were sending me those
flaming messages, not last night when I posted the release. I was
actually getting quite disturbed about your behavior, and thought it
best to detach. These are the kinds of things you are bringing on with
your attitude. As owner of that group, I can do what I want with it,
just as you say you can do what you want with my sources.
There is no GPL violation on that site, because the sourceforge URL
for the new release is clearly given. The source for the old release
is still on the site itself.
Give me a break. I really can't spend my entire day answering these
messages.
I've tried to put my best foot forward in posting the sources as I
said I would. I spent all of last evening doing it and got it to a
level where it builds. Could someone other than you please tell me
what I should add to be in compliance if I am not?
Thanks.
Bob
Robert Keller
Csilla & Walt Foley Professor
Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
3:21 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:33:19AM -0700, Robert Keller wrote:
I've tried to put my best foot forward in posting
the sources as I
said I would. I spent all of last evening doing it and got it to a
level where it builds. Could someone other than you please tell me
what I should add to be in compliance if I am not?
If you have the full GPL text in a text file (normally 'COPYING')
and the GPL 'declaration' in all source files, and the sources
when compiled produce the binary and everything it requires, then
as far as I know you are compliant. No doubt _someone_ will correct
me if necessary.
Your project may need some other changes (not GPL related) to
be in line with usual source code distribution practices, for
example I'd terribly dislike a compilation script or tool that
also launches the application when ready. Normally (but this
is C/C++ practice, and may be different for Java) there are at
least three steps after the sources have been unpacked :
- configure : this checks is everything required is present,
may offer compile-time options, and create additional source
files that adapt the code to the system or platform. Java will
probably require less of the latter.
- make : compile and link (or the equivalent) the application.
- install : move the binaries and any other required resources
to one of the standard places.
After the install step running the program must not depend
on anything in the source tree, which then can be removed.
The install step may or may not include steps to create
a desktop icon, include the app in some desktop menu,
etc., but at least on Linux is not required to do this.
There is a wide range of desktops being used on Linux
machines, and people who compile things from source
usually know what to do on their system. In this sense
things are easier for Linux than for e.g. OSX.
I'm a complete Java nitwit, someone knowing more about
it should be able to provide better advice.
Anyway, I'd advise to distribute the binary from the
same place as the sources. You are required to keep
them in step, so it could actually be easier that way.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
8:29 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 12:33:19 you wrote:
Liar. I checked numbers of times over the weekend and it is only now after
you announce this release that I am banned, not blocked.
Yes, you can do what you want on your group, but I never sent any
messages to your group. Liar.
P.S. Bob
kicked me off his Yahoo group with this "new" release he
just made.
Why would he do that? He never let me post any message previously
without
censoring or dumping them. So I haven't even sent any that might be
questionable to him since last year because of this. He is just
trying to
prevent me from getting at the files he is releasing. Apparently he
must be
afraid of something or doing something wrong. And he is, GPL
violations still
exist on that group with this release. Go check for yourselves.
Can you see more now the kind of person he is?
I blocked you last Friday, actually, when you were sending me those
flaming messages, not last night when I posted the release. I was
actually getting quite disturbed about your behavior, and thought it
best to detach. These are the kinds of things you are bringing on with
your attitude. As owner of that group, I can do what I want with it,
just as you say you can do what you want with my sources. There is no GPL violation on that site, because the
sourceforge URL
for the new release is clearly given. The source for the old release
is still on the site itself.
Liar.
Give me a break. I really can't spend my entire
day answering these
messages.
I've tried to put my best foot forward in posting the sources as I
said I would. I spent all of last evening doing it and got it to a
level where it builds. Could someone other than you please tell me
what I should add to be in compliance if I am not?
I told you last year, but you would not listen. Now, hear you come
with crocodile tears, once I have managed to motivate you to action.
Oh, poor you.
Raymond
10:34 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:36 PM, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
By "blocked" I meant "banned". There is no separate thing as
"blocked"
in the Yahoo! groups.
I know full well when I did it and it was last week after I was being
flamed, not last night.
By calling me a liar, you are just digging a hole for yourself.
Bob
Robert Keller
Csilla & Walt Foley Professor
Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
I blocked you
last Friday, actually, when you were sending me those
flaming messages, not last night when I posted the release. I was
actually getting quite disturbed about your behavior, and thought it
best to detach. These are the kinds of things you are bringing on
with
your attitude. As owner of that group, I can do what I want with it,
just as you say you can do what you want with my sources.
Liar. I checked numbers of times over the weekend and it is only now
after
you announce this release that I am banned, not blocked.
10:42 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
By "blocked" I meant "banned". There is no separate thing as
"blocked"
in the Yahoo! groups.
I know full well when I did it and it was last week after I was being
flamed, not last night.
By calling me a liar, you are just digging a hole for yourself.
Bob
Here is a partial screen shot from the Yahoo! management Banned
members showing the date of banning, which would put it at last
Saturday. I considered it Friday night because I was still up late
preparing my slides for my talk Saturday morning.
Robert Keller
Csilla & Walt Foley Professor
Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
11:28 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:40:38 you wrote:
How does that show I am being banned?
I cannot see a thing that would indicate that.
It just proves I was still there on the group on Saturday!
And, again, you have proved you are a liar.
Raymond
By
"blocked" I meant "banned". There is no separate thing as
"blocked"
in the Yahoo! groups.
I know full well when I did it and it was last week after I was being
flamed, not last night.
By calling me a liar, you are just digging a hole for yourself.
Bob
Here is a partial screen shot from the Yahoo! management Banned
members showing the date of banning, which would put it at last
Saturday. I considered it Friday night because I was still up late
preparing my slides for my talk Saturday morning.
11:24 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:35 you wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:36 PM, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
By "blocked" I meant "banned". There is no separate thing as
"blocked"
in the Yahoo! groups.
I know full well when I did it and it was last week after I was being
flamed, not last night.
By calling me a liar, you are just digging a hole for yourself.
Yes, you are a liar.
Show me where the hole is?
There is no reason to remove someone from a group for emails
they send to you privately. That is why you are so very much a liar.
Raymond
I blocked
you last Friday, actually, when you were sending me those
flaming messages, not last night when I posted the release. I was
actually getting quite disturbed about your behavior, and thought it
best to detach. These are the kinds of things you are bringing on
with
your attitude. As owner of that group, I can do what I want with it,
just as you say you can do what you want with my sources.
Liar. I checked numbers of times over the weekend and it is only now
after
you announce this release that I am banned, not blocked.
11:53 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Yes, you are a liar.
Show me where the hole is?
There is no reason to remove someone from a group for emails
they send to you privately. That is why you are so very much a liar.
Raymond
I am a liar because I banned you from my group?
I refuse to continue this ridiculous exchange. I am going to be
ignoring your emails from now on.
I am pretty sure most of the others are tired of hearing from you as
well. But it is clear that you are never going to stop.
Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how transparent this
situation is.
I have taken down all of the version 3.39 from my Yahoo! group, so
there can't be any further accusation of violation regarding that.
These are the same files that you took and posted on your sourceForge
for distribution. So if there was any violation there, there is one on
your site as well. Simply adding a GPL text file doesn't change that.
Anyone that cares to take a look can see what you have done. But I
doubt that anyone cares.
Also the thumbs up review message you posted on your site says this:
"This projects hosts the Impro-Visor application and code." That is a
misrepresentation. You already said your project was named
"improvisor", not Impro-Visor, the name of my project for four years.
In summary, I have tried my best to comply with all the GPL items.
Each time you try to come up with something else that I am supposed to
do. But I think you have run out now. If you have anything further,
report it to the FSF.
Robert Keller
Csilla & Walt Foley Professor
Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
29 Jul
29 Jul
12:11 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 21:51:12 you wrote:
You are liar because you made it sound like I was sending flames to the group.
When in fact they were private messages. A totally separate thing with
nothing to do with the group. For which there should be no associated action,
unless you are trying to be vindictive.
Anyway, I already explained this, but obviously you are trying to wiggle
out of things because you cannot face the truth of your bad actions.
Yes, you are a
liar.
Show me where the hole is?
There is no reason to remove someone from a group for emails
they send to you privately. That is why you are so very much a liar.
Raymond
I am a liar because I banned you from my group? I refuse to continue this ridiculous exchange. I am
going to be
ignoring your emails from now on.
I thought you were going to do that last week when we exchanged messages.
I finally had to ask you why you were continuing when you wanted to stop. Then
you stopped. Logic is not your strength, I think.
I am pretty sure most of the others are tired of hearing from you as
well. But it is clear that you are never going to stop.
Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how transparent this
situation is.
Sure. I am right and you keep violating the GPL all over the place
until I bring it up again.
I have taken down all of the version 3.39 from my
Yahoo! group, so
there can't be any further accusation of violation regarding that.
These are the same files that you took and posted on your sourceForge
for distribution. So if there was any violation there, there is one on
your site as well. Simply adding a GPL text file doesn't change that.
Anyone that cares to take a look can see what you have done. But I
doubt that anyone cares.
All that was missing was the license file, I added it in. That was all that is
needed to bring it into compliance. Thus, I have no violations, as far as I
know. It was very easy to do. If there are any violations that came from your
bad actions, then if you read the GPL I cannot be liable for them. Read the
GPL.
Did you you check the version 4 files also? I checked earlier today and
YOU WERE STILL VIOLATING THE GPL!!!
Also the thumbs up review message you posted on your site says this:
"This projects hosts the Impro-Visor application and code." That is a
misrepresentation. You already said your project was named
"improvisor", not Impro-Visor, the name of my project for four years.
There is no rule against me posting that. I am hosting the original
Impro-Visor on the project. What part do you not understand? I mean, I am
doing exactly what I am allowed to do, host distribution of a GPL program.
Do you not understand that this is what SF is for?
In summary, I have tried my best to comply with all
the GPL items.
Each time you try to come up with something else that I am supposed to
do. But I think you have run out now. If you have anything further,
report it to the FSF.
Again, you show your ignorance. The FSF is not going to do anything about
it. It is not their concern. Only the copyright holders can do anything about
it. The exchanges we have been having are about you doing the right thing
regardless of whether those copyright holders want to take action or not.
What part of all this did you not understand?
Raymond
12:38 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0700, Robert Keller wrote:
Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how
transparent this
situation is.
Out of curiosity I checked. Assuming the entire source code of the
project is contained in what you get with:
svn co https://impro-visor.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/impro-visor
at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer non-authoritative
opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL
version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF.
The only thing even worth mentioning is that you may want to explicitly
specify the license of the data files iff you want them to be something
other than the GPLv2+. This is just a matter of taste (some prefer a
more liberal license for "input files"), and not a compliance problem.
In summary: As far as I can tell, the sky is not falling, and your LAD
karma is roughly +78000 LOC. Chicken Little, whose LAD karma seems to
be 0 at best, may safely and wisely be ignored.
Thanks for sharing your work,
-dr
12:54 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0700, Robert Keller
wrote:
The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
to distribute it.
Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how
transparent this
situation is.
Out of curiosity I checked. Assuming the entire source code of the
project is contained in what you get with:
svn co https://impro-visor.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/impro-visor
at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer non-authoritative
opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL
version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF. The only thing even worth mentioning is that you may
want to explicitly
specify the license of the data files iff you want them to be something
other than the GPLv2+. This is just a matter of taste (some prefer a
more liberal license for "input files"), and not a compliance problem.
In summary: As far as I can tell, the sky is not falling, and your LAD
karma is roughly +78000 LOC. Chicken Little, whose LAD karma seems to
be 0 at best, may safely and wisely be ignored.
Except for the big minus 1000000 for still violating the GPL on the Yahoo
group. You missed that part.
Raymond
1:18 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:01 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard
wrote:
No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL violation
on Prof. Keller's part.
-dr
at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer
non-authoritative
opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL
version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF.
The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
to distribute it.
1:56 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 23:18:03 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:01 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no license file in
it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
And way to go putting words in my mouth. I never said, or even hinted
what you are saying. Reading a little too much into things are we.
Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard
wrote:
No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL violation
on Prof. Keller's part. at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer
non-authoritative
opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL
version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF.
The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
to distribute it.
2:49 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 00:04 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 23:18:03 David Robillard
wrote:
Gasp! An actually useful piece of information! Don't you think it
would be more useful to divulge these without constantly picking a fight
for no reason whatsoever?
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:01 -0400,
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no license file in
it. I checked the dist/zip targets. On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard
wrote:
No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL violation
on Prof. Keller's part. at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer
non-authoritative
opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL
version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF.
The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
to distribute it. And way to go putting words in my mouth. I never said,
or even hinted
what you are saying. Reading a little too much into things are we.
While the hilarity of this sentence's self-contained hypocrisy and
general lack of coherence is appreciated, you may want to consider
taking an introductory logic course. If you're more the independent
learning type, start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication - You clearly do not
understand this since I didn't imply you said anything, or imply you
said what I said somehow before I said it, or whatever it is you're
attempting to express here (English 101 might not hurt either).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy - You commit even the most well
known of these with embarrassing frequency
On a more abstract note, if I were you I'd put some serious thought time
into the consequences of your behavior if you truly care about Free
Software in any way whatsoever. You aren't helping.
Perhaps - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - you are
actually an intelligent person, but blinded by rage. May you some day
grow out of this sad, spiteful, and altogether counter-productive and
poisonous mentality that causes you to make such a fool of yourself and
derail otherwise productive forums,
-dr
P.S. Throw your predictable last anemic jab if you must, I won't respond
1 Aug
1 Aug
1:32 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 00:04 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 23:18:03 David Robillard wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:01 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard wrote:
> > > > at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer non-authoritative
> > > > opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL
> > > > version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF.
> > >
> > > The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
> > > package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
> > > to distribute it.
> >
> > No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL violation
> > on Prof. Keller's part.
>
> Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no license file
> in it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating and not
Keller.
sincerely,
Marije
3:28 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard
wrote:
This was not the point though. Just pointing out that a user/developer
could inadvertently start distributing packages that do violate. As far
as I am concerned, a little bit more diligence should be directed to these
kinds of issues before distribution takes place. In the Impro-Visor 4
source package I distribute (on Improvisor at SF) I have fixed this so that
it won't happen.
On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the copyright
changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I have the 2.04
source and I see that there are a number of people who have copyrights
indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39
headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his educational
institution. What is the situation with that?
Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the institution or
this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their
respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see
everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights indicated.
Some clarification would be helpful.
Raymond
> > >
> > > The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
> > > package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
> > > to distribute it.
> >
> > No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL
> > violation on Prof. Keller's part.
>
> Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no license
> file in it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating and not
Keller.
9:04 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20 laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi wrote:
Bob Keller has to comment on that for the precise situation, but it may well
be that student's work in his institution, are copyrighted by the institution.
sincerely,
Marije
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David
Robillard wrote:
This was not the point though. Just pointing out that a user/developer
could inadvertently start distributing packages that do violate. As far
as I am concerned, a little bit more diligence should be directed to these
kinds of issues before distribution takes place. In the Impro-Visor 4
source package I distribute (on Improvisor at SF) I have fixed this so that
it won't happen.
On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the
copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I have the
2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have copyrights
indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39
headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his
educational institution. What is the situation with that?
Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the institution or
this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their
respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see
everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights indicated.
Some clarification would be helpful. > > > The raw code seems okay over
there. Running ant to make a dist
> > > package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
> > > to distribute it.
> >
> > No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL
> > violation on Prof. Keller's part.
>
> Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no license
> file in it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating and not
Keller.
9:54 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote:
On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20 laseray(a)gmail.com
wrote:
We employ the students, so we own the copyright.
Bob
Robert Keller
Csilla & Walt Foley Professor
Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi
wrote:
Bob Keller has to comment on that for the precise situation, but it
may well
be that student's work in his institution, are copyrighted by the
institution.
sincerely,
Marije On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David
Robillard wrote:
This was not the point though. Just pointing out that a user/
developer
could inadvertently start distributing packages that do violate. As
far
as I am concerned, a little bit more diligence should be directed
to these
kinds of issues before distribution takes place. In the Impro-Visor 4
source package I distribute (on Improvisor at SF) I have fixed this
so that
it won't happen.
On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the
copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I
have the
2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have
copyrights
indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39
headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his
educational institution. What is the situation with that?
Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the
institution or
this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their
respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see
everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights
indicated.
Some clarification would be helpful. >>> The raw code seems okay over there.
Running ant to make a dist
>>> package results in something that violates the GPL if a user
>>> were
>>> to distribute it.
>>
>> No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL
>> violation on Prof. Keller's part.
>
> Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no
> license
> file in it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating
and not
Keller.
2 Aug
2 Aug
5:57 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Robert Keller wrote:
On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote:
Hi Bob :)
the headers done by other authors are still copyright by the original
authors. The code done by the Harvey Mudd College is copyright by it.
This always must be recognisable. I didn't download your source code,
that's why I don't know if the copyrights are done right or wrong, but I
guess this is the reason for the discord. Even if you changed headers
original done by other authors for more than 50% of the code, it must be
noticeable who was the original author and that you changed it. There's
a stipulation: "a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent
notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
Hth,
Ralf
On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
We employ the students, so we own the copyright.
Bob On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi
wrote:
Bob Keller has to comment on that for the precise situation, but it
may well
be that student's work in his institution, are copyrighted by the
institution.
sincerely,
Marije
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David
Robillard wrote:
[snip]
On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the
copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I
have the
2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have
copyrights
indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39
headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his
educational institution. What is the situation with that?
Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the
institution or
this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their
respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see
everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights
indicated.
Some clarification would be helpful.
6:18 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
PS:
Even if you changed headers
original done by other authors for more than 50% of the code, it must be
noticeable who was the original author and that you changed it. There's
a stipulation: "a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent
notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
I guess this should protect the reliability of the software. If thousand
people change xyz.h, we need to know if we got the original xyz.h, with
the original functionality or if we got a derivate, that might has lost
it's compatibility. Copyrights done under the GPL should protect the
software and users, less the authors, that's why it's called a copyleft.
You only can make the software name, logos etc. copyright, not the code,
if you are using GPL code.
"[snip] My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal:
spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to
spread <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html>, replacing
proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society
better.
That's the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written
the way it is—as a copyleft. All code added to a GPL-covered program
must be free software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make my
code available for use in free software, and not for use in proprietary
software, in order to encourage other people who write software to make
it free as well. I figure that since proprietary software developers use
copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use copyright to
give other cooperators an advantage of their own: they can use our code.
[snip]" (Richard Stallman)
12:37 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
This is false. The GPL doesn't change the meaning of copyright, and it is
worthless without one or more copyright holders (somebody has to have the
copyright in order to apply the license). Authors retain copyright to their
software when they release it under the GPL. The GPL simply grants rights to
others that they otherwise wouldn't have (at least under US law).
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
http://www.pytagsfs.org
Even if you
changed headers original done by other authors for more
than 50% of the code, it must be noticeable who was the original author
and that you changed it. There's a stipulation: "a) You must cause the
modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the
files and the date of any change."
I guess this should protect the reliability of the software. If thousand
people change xyz.h, we need to know if we got the original xyz.h, with
the original functionality or if we got a derivate, that might has lost
it's compatibility. Copyrights done under the GPL should protect the
software and users, less the authors, that's why it's called a copyleft.
You only can make the software name, logos etc. copyright, not the code,
if you are using GPL code.
6:22 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Forest Bond wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
This is false. The GPL doesn't change the meaning of copyright, and it is
worthless without one or more copyright holders (somebody has to have the
copyright in order to apply the license). Authors retain copyright to their
software when they release it under the GPL. The GPL simply grants rights to
others that they otherwise wouldn't have (at least under US law).
-Forest
Thanx, I guess I understand and I guess I mean it that way. I got
off-list a mail on German. We have a
copyright and *related rights* ;). "Urheberrecht" vs
"Vervielfältigungsrecht".
Even if
you changed headers original done by other authors for more
than 50% of the code, it must be noticeable who was the original author
and that you changed it. There's a stipulation: "a) You must cause the
modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the
files and the date of any change."
I guess this should protect the reliability of the software. If thousand
people change xyz.h, we need to know if we got the original xyz.h, with
the original functionality or if we got a derivate, that might has lost
it's compatibility. Copyrights done under the GPL should protect the
software and users, less the authors, that's why it's called a copyleft.
You only can make the software name, logos etc. copyright, not the code,
if you are using GPL code.
6:29 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:57 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Hi Bob :)
the headers done by other authors are still copyright by the
original authors. The code done by the Harvey Mudd College is
copyright by it. This always must be recognisable. I didn't download
your source code, that's why I don't know if the copyrights are done
right or wrong, but I guess this is the reason for the discord. Even
if you changed headers original done by other authors for more than
50% of the code, it must be noticeable who was the original author
and that you changed it. There's a stipulation: "a) You must cause
the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you
changed the files and the date of any change."
Hth,
Ralf
As far as I am aware, original authors who were not employed by HMC
are noted in the headers.
It is not feasible to give a line-by-line analysis at this point, as
the code has been through thousands of versions and multiple
repositories.
Bob
Robert Keller
Csilla & Walt Foley Professor
Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
6:48 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Robert Keller wrote:
[snip] the code has been through thousands of versions
and multiple
repositories.
If you take care to name the original authors and the authors who did
modifications and the dates of the modifications, it also will help you
always to know exactly how you build your own version of software,
that's done by a GPL licensed software bundle. Some day you might get
troubles by doing the debugging and then you might notice, that you
can't exactly remember at what time some parts of the used GPL source
code done by other authors was changed, so you might get problems to
narrow down some problems.
Ralf
10:25 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On 08/02/2009 06:51 AM, Robert Keller wrote:
On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote:
I understand that it's a Sunday and your being pushed to be accountable
however this statement is slightly inflammatory so I have a couple of
questions.
- Am I correct that all releases from your institute are licensed to
your institute and any contributions from your students are also owned
by your institute?
- Do the students sign a disclaimer that says that all code they provide
to you is owned by the institute?
- Out of interest, do you pay your students for the code they give to
you? I assume they pay you for the courses they participate in?
If you originally attribute the copyright to your students then it is
confusing and legally on very shaky ground to later decide that they
actually work for you and all code released by your institute is owned
by your institute.
If however you have a signed document from each student that cedes
ownership to the institute then you are well within your rights.
However it would be courteous to let everyone who uses your code know
that this is the case.
You are treading a fine line by claiming ownership of gpl code and not
attributing license to the original code as defined in the gpl.
Not to mention that attempting to bypass the gpl while relying on gpl
licensed code for the backbone of your app is a violation of the
principals of the gpl and is bound to cause some people round here to
get upset and want to clarify things.
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.
On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
We employ the students, so we own the copyright.
On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi
wrote:
Bob Keller has to comment on that for the precise situation, but it
may well
be that student's work in his institution, are copyrighted by the
institution.
sincerely,
Marije
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David
Robillard wrote:
>>>> The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
>>>> package results in something that violates the GPL if a user
>>>> were
>>>> to distribute it.
>>>>
>>> No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL
>>> violation on Prof. Keller's part.
>>>
>> Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no
>> license
>> file in it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
>>
so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating
and not
Keller.
This was not the point though. Just pointing out that a user/
developer
could inadvertently start distributing packages that do violate. As
far
as I am concerned, a little bit more diligence should be directed
to these
kinds of issues before distribution takes place. In the Impro-Visor 4
source package I distribute (on Improvisor at SF) I have fixed this
so that
it won't happen.
On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the
copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I
have the
2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have
copyrights
indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39
headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his
educational institution. What is the situation with that?
Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the
institution or
this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their
respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see
everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights
indicated.
Some clarification would be helpful.
Bob
Robert Keller
Csilla& Walt Foley Professor
Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
5589
days inactive
5594
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
37 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
alex stone -
Christian Ohm -
David Robillard -
Fons Adriaensen -
Forest Bond -
Grammostola Rosea -
james morris -
laseray＠gmail.com -
nescivi -
Patrick Shirkey -
Ralf Mardorf -
Robert Keller