27 Jan
2011
27 Jan
'11
10:35 p.m.
Could the community please review the attribution so we may continue
with our journey? This attribution appears on the website, github,
README and anywhere else you guys need to see it.
OOM2 is developed from the base code of MusE (Muse Sequencer) written by
the mighty Werner Schweer, and maintained and modified to the present
day, by the current Muse2 maintainer Robert Jonsson and his team.
We not only willingly credit Werner for his code, but add our deepest
respect and admiration as well.
Thanks for all your kind words and support.
P.S. Chris Cannam, the offer stands if you would like me to sign over
all my copyrighted oom code to you. As you explained open source
developers have very little but attribution. Well except those that make
big bucks off it.
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
27 Jan
27 Jan
10:47 p.m.
Hello all1
I haven't followed the complete discussion, only seen bits of it. But what
is so fundamentally wrong with that attribution? Maybe a little short and
informal and I don't understand the P.S., but don't explain, I'm sure I can
read it for myself, if I'm willing to without waisting your time and anymore
attribution, copyright and legality space here. :-)
Kind regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
28 Jan
28 Jan
1:19 a.m.
I've followed this conversation from the beginning
I'm usually very quiet just reading all the emails from LAU & LAD with
a very few answers (just because my knowledge from a user and from dev
point of view is limited)
I do understand the message but i think it needs another PS:
Sarcasm
2011/1/27 Julien Claassen <julien(a)c-lab.de>de>:
Hello all1
I haven't followed the complete discussion, only seen bits of it. But what
is so fundamentally wrong with that attribution? Maybe a little short and
informal and I don't understand the P.S., but don't explain, I'm sure I can
read it for myself, if I'm willing to without waisting your time and anymore
attribution, copyright and legality space here. :-)
Kind regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
9:30 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:19 AM, diego simak <diego.simak(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've followed this conversation from the beginning
I'm usually very quiet just reading all the emails from LAU & LAD with
a very few answers (just because my knowledge from a user and from dev
point of view is limited)
I do understand the message but i think it needs another PS:
Sarcasm
2011/1/27 Julien Claassen <julien(a)c-lab.de>de>:
Quite the contrary. We've been admirers of Werner's work for quite
some time, not only for the MusE code, but his stunning work with
Musescore.
The......warmth of the attribution is an acknowledgement of that, and
as a few other devs may attest to, we are quick to thank them for
updates and fixes, and acknowledge them in the same way.
Alex.
Hello all1
I haven't followed the complete discussion, only seen bits of it. But what
is so fundamentally wrong with that attribution? Maybe a little short and
informal and I don't understand the P.S., but don't explain, I'm sure I can
read it for myself, if I'm willing to without waisting your time and anymore
attribution, copyright and legality space here. :-)
Kind regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
11:33 a.m.
Am Donnerstag, den 27.01.2011, 14:35 -0700 schrieb Christopher Cherrett:
Could the community please review the attribution so
we may continue
with our journey? This attribution appears on the website, github,
README and anywhere else you guys need to see it.
Sorry, maybe I'm just to stupid, but I'm not able to find a single hit
to Muse on your project page, could you please give me a hint were I
found it ?
regards hermann
11:44 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:31 PM, hermann <brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 27.01.2011, 14:35 -0700 schrieb
Christopher Cherrett:
Hermann,
https://github.com/ccherrett/oom/wiki
Alex.
Could the community please review the attribution
so we may continue
with our journey? This attribution appears on the website, github,
README and anywhere else you guys need to see it.
Sorry, maybe I'm just to stupid, but I'm not able to find a single hit
to Muse on your project page, could you please give me a hint were I
found it ?
regards hermann
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
29 Jan
29 Jan
12:53 a.m.
On January 27, 2011 04:35:47 pm Christopher Cherrett wrote:
Could the community please review the attribution so
we may continue
with our journey? This attribution appears on the website, github,
README and anywhere else you guys need to see it.
From the GPL section 5:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and
giving a relevant date.
I still don't see anything in the about box or the oo website mentioning this.
And as was mentioned here, you cannot claim sole copyright.
Is this what you call attribution? Erasing every last mention of muse,
even in comments?
I received permission from Josh, the Fluidsynth and Swami author, to use
the fluidsynth logo, on condition of attribution in AUTHORS, where I added
his name.
But you have removed his name from AUTHORS. That is wrong.
I'm sorry but "Special Thanks to the MusE developers" in the AUTHORS
doesn't cut it. It sounds like we simply helped with a module or something.
Browsing, you removed my name and stamp from the top of at least one file:
README.effects-rack, and put your name there.
If I understand the GPL, you are not to remove such attributions, anywhere.
Yes Alex, *I* wrote that several hundred word essay, not *you* ,on how
to use the effects rack. That was after I spent 2 weeks fixing the rack.
Do you know who has contributed much of the thousands of lines in
the MusE ChangeLog over the past five years? Me.
But you wouldn't know that since you completely removed the ChangeLog.
So again, you have removed *many* attributions there, mine and many others
who worked on MusE. I would never do that.
What is this shining piece of software you 'professionals' make?
Where can I buy a copy so I can call you up the same day, and tell you,
quote, "it sucks", and demand changes, and you will do it the same day,
for free? Really, I'd like to know. Please tell me what it is.
Yes, only you know how software should be. Let us all bow down and do things
your way.
I try very hard to accommodate all requests.
But a group of developers pestering me to fix dozens
of things within mere hours or days due to some 'urgency', is sick.
Not one single patch contributed to us. Nothing.
Why don't YOU spend five years of your lives learning the code?
Do you care that I just finished the soloing system, as you requested?
I clearly marked all changes to help you guys, even after the fork.
BTW You owe Orcan so much gratitude.
He personally converted many thousands of lines of MusE code and UIs to Qt4,
while you guys lurked on the side waiting for us to finish.
Without him, OOM2 and MusE2 are nothing.
Tim.
2:06 a.m.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Tim E. Real <termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
On January 27, 2011 04:35:47 pm Christopher Cherrett
wrote:
Attribution has been added as requested.
We'll add the history attribution in the about box as soon as we have
the chance.
The lurking insinuation is nonsense and you know it. We didn't
"pester" you fix things, we were willing to do it ourselves, but you
said no, more than once, as you wanted to do it yourself, as only you
could do it, or at least that's what you told us.
I didn't change the Readme as a direct challenge to you, it was a
mistake on my part, and i noted the date in case there was a problem.
Why would i do this knowing you'd be waiting in the wings to jump and
find something wrong?
If you have the courage to do this in a mature fashion going forward,
then let us know privately if we've missed anything else.
We've added a changelog.muse to the git repo, and we'll reference it
in the changelog. As a courtesy, we'll also add a reference to muse in
the already maintained copyright section in each file.
Is that suitable for you?
Alex.
p.s. Orcan and Robert continue to have my respect, because at least
they tried to handle this in a mature and adult manner.
Could the community please review the attribution
so we may continue
with our journey? This attribution appears on the website, github,
README and anywhere else you guys need to see it.
From the GPL section 5:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and
giving a relevant date.
I still don't see anything in the about box or the oo website mentioning this.
And as was mentioned here, you cannot claim sole copyright.
Is this what you call attribution? Erasing every last mention of muse,
even in comments?
I received permission from Josh, the Fluidsynth and Swami author, to use
the fluidsynth logo, on condition of attribution in AUTHORS, where I added
his name.
But you have removed his name from AUTHORS. That is wrong.
I'm sorry but "Special Thanks to the MusE developers" in the AUTHORS
doesn't cut it. It sounds like we simply helped with a module or something.
Browsing, you removed my name and stamp from the top of at least one file:
README.effects-rack, and put your name there.
If I understand the GPL, you are not to remove such attributions, anywhere.
Yes Alex, *I* wrote that several hundred word essay, not *you* ,on how
to use the effects rack. That was after I spent 2 weeks fixing the rack.
Do you know who has contributed much of the thousands of lines in
the MusE ChangeLog over the past five years? Me.
But you wouldn't know that since you completely removed the ChangeLog.
So again, you have removed *many* attributions there, mine and many others
who worked on MusE. I would never do that.
What is this shining piece of software you 'professionals' make?
Where can I buy a copy so I can call you up the same day, and tell you,
quote, "it sucks", and demand changes, and you will do it the same day,
for free? Really, I'd like to know. Please tell me what it is.
Yes, only you know how software should be. Let us all bow down and do things
your way.
I try very hard to accommodate all requests.
But a group of developers pestering me to fix dozens
of things within mere hours or days due to some 'urgency', is sick.
Not one single patch contributed to us. Nothing.
Why don't YOU spend five years of your lives learning the code?
Do you care that I just finished the soloing system, as you requested?
I clearly marked all changes to help you guys, even after the fork.
BTW You owe Orcan so much gratitude.
He personally converted many thousands of lines of MusE code and UIs to Qt4,
while you guys lurked on the side waiting for us to finish.
Without him, OOM2 and MusE2 are nothing.
Tim.
3:01 a.m.
On January 28, 2011 08:06:18 pm you wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Tim E. Real
<termtech(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Nope. Shall I dig up the logs
where the whole lot of you kept coming at me?
One request after another as I tried to cope.
Do it yourselves? Nope. You asked me to do much of the stuff.
But you didn't understand the work involved, the can of coding worms that
it was opening. Why didn't you go ahead and do it and give us patches?
I asked, and nothing.
On January 27, 2011 04:35:47 pm Christopher
Cherrett wrote:
Attribution has been added as requested.
We'll add the history attribution in the about box as soon as we have
the chance.
The lurking insinuation is nonsense and you know it. We didn't
"pester" you fix things, we were willing to do it ourselves, but you
said no, more than once, as you wanted to do it yourself, as only you
could do it, or at least that's what you told us. Could the community please review the attribution
so we may continue
with our journey? This attribution appears on the website, github,
README and anywhere else you guys need to see it.
From the GPL section 5:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it,
and giving a relevant date.
I still don't see anything in the about box or the oo website mentioning
this. And as was mentioned here, you cannot claim sole copyright.
Is this what you call attribution? Erasing every last mention of muse,
even in comments?
I received permission from Josh, the Fluidsynth and Swami author, to use
the fluidsynth logo, on condition of attribution in AUTHORS, where I
added his name.
But you have removed his name from AUTHORS. That is wrong.
I'm sorry but "Special Thanks to the MusE developers" in the AUTHORS
doesn't cut it. It sounds like we simply helped with a module or
something.
Browsing, you removed my name and stamp from the top of at least one
file: README.effects-rack, and put your name there.
If I understand the GPL, you are not to remove such attributions,
anywhere. Yes Alex, *I* wrote that several hundred word essay, not *you*
,on how to use the effects rack. That was after I spent 2 weeks fixing
the rack.
Do you know who has contributed much of the thousands of lines in
the MusE ChangeLog over the past five years? Me.
But you wouldn't know that since you completely removed the ChangeLog.
So again, you have removed *many* attributions there, mine and many
others who worked on MusE. I would never do that.
What is this shining piece of software you 'professionals' make?
Where can I buy a copy so I can call you up the same day, and tell you,
quote, "it sucks", and demand changes, and you will do it the same day,
for free? Really, I'd like to know. Please tell me what it is.
Yes, only you know how software should be. Let us all bow down and do
things your way.
I try very hard to accommodate all requests.
But a group of developers pestering me to fix dozens
of things within mere hours or days due to some 'urgency', is sick.
Not one single patch contributed to us. Nothing.
Why don't YOU spend five years of your lives learning the code?
Do you care that I just finished the soloing system, as you requested?
I clearly marked all changes to help you guys, even after the fork.
BTW You owe Orcan so much gratitude.
He personally converted many thousands of lines of MusE code and UIs to
Qt4, while you guys lurked on the side waiting for us to finish.
Without him, OOM2 and MusE2 are nothing.
Tim. I didn't change the Readme as a direct challenge
to you, it was a
mistake on my part, and i noted the date in case there was a problem.
Why would i do this knowing you'd be waiting in the wings to jump and
find something wrong?
If you have the courage to do this in a mature fashion going forward,
then let us know privately if we've missed anything else.
And if you had the
courage to do this right, I would not have to defend
our work now.
We've added a changelog.muse to the git repo, and we'll reference it
in the changelog. As a courtesy, we'll also add a reference to muse in
the already maintained copyright section in each file.
Is that suitable for you?
Yes this sounds good so far, thank you.
Alex.
p.s. Orcan and Robert continue to have my respect, because at least
they tried to handle this in a mature and adult manner.
Blah blah blah. Oh yes
you're so very mature.
Was I rude? Did I swear at you? Never. I made every effort to accommodate
and communicate with you in a mature manner.
If nobody here piped up about this, you likely would have done nothing.
So I took a parting shot. Big deal. Get over it. "Calm down".
No worse than when I was told "the MusE look sucks", is it?
Tim.
5:48 a.m.
On 01/29/2011 12:51 PM, Tim E. Real wrote:
As a courtesy, we'll also add a reference to muse
in
> the already maintained copyright section in each file.
Alex, you still
don't seem to get the point - none of these requests are
a generous or "courteous" addition on your part - it's a licence
requirement. The VAST majority of what you have supplied here as your
"product" simply isn't.
Do that anywhere else and you'd be in court - and not a civil one as we
have seen here.
I sincerely hope this is an end to all this rubbish.
nice day etc etc
g.
7:15 p.m.
On Saturday 29 January 2011 05:40:52 Geoff Beasley wrote:
On 01/29/2011 12:51 PM, Tim E. Real wrote:
Removing names from copyright notices _will_ get you in court regardless
whether its free software or not. Its a breach of the license, nothing less.
And breaching the license revokes your right to do anything with the software,
you would not be allowed to sell it, change it, compile it, use it, look at
it, nor have it on your hard-drive.
I am not a lawyer (thankfully), only a software-programmer and future
business-boss but removing names from copyright-notices at anytime in the
repository (and adding them back in) is basically a no-go and will open you up
for a big shoot out. And you will loose...
Oh, changing the license without the permission from all copyright-holders is
the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless whether
you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2
or later" to
"gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"...
Have fun,
Arnold
As a courtesy, we'll also add a reference to
muse in
> the already maintained copyright section in each file.
Alex, you still
don't seem to get the point - none of these requests are
a generous or "courteous" addition on your part - it's a licence
requirement. The VAST majority of what you have supplied here as your
"product" simply isn't. 
9:52 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote:
Oh, changing the license without the permission from
all copyright-holders
is
the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless
whether
you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2
or later"
to
"gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"...
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. When you
distribute
"under the terms of the GPL2 or later", that means I can accept
your program under the terms of the GPL3. The terms of the GPL3 say that I
can modify it and redistribute it under the GPL3. Similarly for the GPL2.
Notice the language says "*or* later", not "*and* later". I get to
choose
which license I agree to. Otherwise, it would be pointless to even offer it
under the "GPL 2 or later" because I would *have* to distribute it under the
GPL3, which places further restrictions on top of the GPL2, meaning that it
would effectively be under the GPL3 no matter what.
Jeremy
10:46 p.m.
On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:52:06 Jeremy Salwen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille
<arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote:
You are right. Redistributing code from "gpl2 or any later" can happen under
gpl3 or any later. Now what about redistributing it under "gpl3 only"?
Anyway that is the reason I delete the "or any later" term in my copyright
notices. Apart from the fact that one can never know whether gpl4 will give
all the rights exclusively to microsoft or google or the nsa...
Have fun,
Arnold
Oh, changing the license without the permission
from all
copyright-holders is
the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless
whether
you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2
or
later" to
"gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"...
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. When you
distribute "under the terms of the GPL2 or later", that means I can accept
your program under the terms of the GPL3. The terms of the GPL3 say that I
can modify it and redistribute it under the GPL3. Similarly for the GPL2.
Notice the language says "*or* later", not "*and* later". I get to
choose
which license I agree to. Otherwise, it would be pointless to even offer
it under the "GPL 2 or later" because I would *have* to distribute it
under the GPL3, which places further restrictions on top of the GPL2,
meaning that it would effectively be under the GPL3 no matter what.
30 Jan
30 Jan
12:53 a.m.
On Saturday 29 January 2011 22:42:16 Arnold Krille wrote:
You are right. Redistributing code from "gpl2 or any later" can happen
under gpl3 or any later. Now what about redistributing it under "gpl3
only"?
Stupid me, of course one can relicense it under "gpl3 only"... "gpl2 or
later"
includes redistribution with "gplX or later" and "gplX only" with
X>=2.
Off to bed,
Arnold
On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:52:06 Jeremy Salwen
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
wrote:
Oh, changing the license without the permission from
all
copyright-holders is
the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless
whether
you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2
or
later" to
"gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"...
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. When you
distribute "under the terms of the GPL2 or later", that means I can
accept your program under the terms of the GPL3. The terms of the GPL3
say that I can modify it and redistribute it under the GPL3. Similarly
for the GPL2. Notice the language says "*or* later", not "*and*
later".
I get to choose which license I agree to. Otherwise, it would be
pointless to even offer it under the "GPL 2 or later" because I would
*have* to distribute it under the GPL3, which places further
restrictions on top of the GPL2, meaning that it would effectively be
under the GPL3 no matter what.
1 a.m.
Anyway that is the reason I delete the "or any later" term in my copyright
notices. Apart from the fact that one can never know whether gpl4 will give
all the rights exclusively to microsoft or google or the nsa...
I have always wondered about this, as it never made sense to me to license
your
work under something which doesn't exist yet, and you don't know what
its terms will be! Will the GPL5 also give away rights to your organs along
with the software? Probably not, but I'm not willing to risk it.
Jeremy
31 Jan
31 Jan
5:38 p.m.
On Saturday 29 January 2011 18:59:32 Jeremy Salwen wrote:
For a (strong?) copyleft license, there are benefits and dangers each way.
People have to make their own call on this.
Anyway that is
the reason I delete the "or any later" term in my
copyright notices. Apart from the fact that one can never know whether
gpl4 will give all the rights exclusively to microsoft or google or the
nsa...
I have always wondered about this, as it never made sense to me to
license
your work under something which doesn't exist yet, and you don't know what
its terms will be! Will the GPL5 also give away rights to your organs
along with the software? Probably not, but I'm not willing to risk it.
Jeremy
all the best,
drew
6:24 p.m.
On January 31, 2011 11:37:42 am drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 29 January 2011 18:59:32 Jeremy Salwen
wrote:
> > Anyway that is the reason I delete the "or any later" term in my
> > copyright notices. Apart from the fact that one can never know whether
> > gpl4 will give all the rights exclusively to microsoft or google or the
> > nsa...
I do not know why anybody would think this is even possible. The GPL is
written by the Free Software Foundation. So being free is a foundational goal
and the past 30 years and evolution of the licenses have shown this to be the
case. Perhaps you should go and read their mission statement and about the
history of all this before saying things like that.
It is almost an impossible scenario since the license is clearly about keeping
software free for anyone to use, develop, distribute, in accord with the
license. It is logical to deduce that anything besides that would be
contradictory to its intent, and possibly cancel any power of enforcement that
the license carries.
In fact there is no way for FSF to sign over any rights you have in the code
you write. You always have the right to take your original code and put it out
under a different license, free or proprietary. If anything towards what you
suggested were to occur developers would just up and put their code out under
different licenses. After all the work the FSF has put into these licenses I am
certain they have examined many scenarios and possible outcomes of changing
the license in one way or another.
There is really nothing to fear in using the GPL.
Raymond
5391
days inactive
5395
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
16 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
alex stone -
Arnold Krille -
Christopher Cherrett -
diego simak -
drew Roberts -
Geoff Beasley -
hermann -
Jeremy Salwen -
Julien Claassen -
Raymond Martin -
Tim E. Real