19 Jul
2009
19 Jul
'09
11:55 a.m.
Hi all,
If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the latest Impro-visor version,
which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to the terms of the
GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know and I will send it.
I'm sure it won't compile immediately, since there are a number of incorrect
constructs returned by the decompilation. I will work on this in the next
while to have it compile.
I think someone else mentioned they posted the older binary/source somewhere.
Perhaps this can be hosted at the same location (have to look back to see
where that is/who posted).
Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next few
days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the GPL
violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not been
posted along with the binaries as is legally required. I also contacted
the department head at the institution responsible for this work to see
if they would look into the matter. Perhaps they can sort this out in the
next little while. Failing that, I will probably start a new project on
SourceForge and be looking to put together a development team.
Contributions to the software by users will also be welcome. There will
be a need for new leadsheets, transcriptions, documentation, and even
translations of the user interface.
Cheer,
Raymond
19 Jul
19 Jul
12:09 p.m.
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next few
days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the GPL
violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not been
posted along with the binaries as is legally required. I also contacted
the department head at the institution responsible for this work to see
if they would look into the matter. Perhaps they can sort this out in the
next little while. Failing that, I will probably start a new project on
SourceForge and be looking to put together a development team.
Contributions to the software by users will also be welcome. There will
be a need for new leadsheets, transcriptions, documentation, and even
translations of the user interface.
It's holiday in this part of the world... I don't know if that makes
responding delayed?
\r
12:54 p.m.
On Sunday 19 July 2009, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the latest Impro-visor version,
which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to the terms of
the GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know and I will send
it.
I'm sure it won't compile immediately, since there are a number of incorrect
constructs returned by the decompilation. I will work on this in the next
while to have it compile.
I think someone else mentioned they posted the older binary/source
somewhere. Perhaps this can be hosted at the same location (have to look
back to see where that is/who posted).
Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next few
days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the GPL
violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not been
posted along with the binaries as is legally required. I also contacted
the department head at the institution responsible for this work to see
if they would look into the matter. Perhaps they can sort this out in the
next little while. Failing that, I will probably start a new project on
SourceForge and be looking to put together a development team.
Contributions to the software by users will also be welcome. There will
be a need for new leadsheets, transcriptions, documentation, and even
translations of the user interface.
Cheer,
Raymond
Turn this violation over to the kind folks at the FSF. They have a legal team
to pursue such, and have AFAIK, a 100% batting record. Letters from attorneys
will generally get their institutional attention.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The NRA is offering FREE Associate memberships to anyone who wants them.
<https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp>
You buttered your bread, now lie in it.
1:12 p.m.
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 19 July 2009, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
Maybe. I submitted details re: the LinuxSampler license to the FSF and
never heard a thing from them.
For the OP's edification I submit this text from the GPL2 :
*3.* You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
*a)* Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
*b)* Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost
of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
*c)* Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received
the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in
accord with Subsection b above.)
There is no legal requirement for the producer to post the source code
along with the binary. The legal requirement is that he makes it
available under conditions spelled out in the license.
Best,
dp
If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the
latest Impro-visor version,
which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to the terms of
the GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know and I will send
it.
....
Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next few
days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the GPL
violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not been
posted along with the binaries as is legally required....
Turn this violation over
to the kind folks at the FSF. They have a legal team
to pursue such, and have AFAIK, a 100% batting record. Letters from attorneys
will generally get their institutional attention.
1:53 p.m.
On Sunday 19 July 2009 11:12:33 Dave Phillips wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Submitting a violation to FSF will probably only work if the copyright on the
source code that is being infringed is owned by the FSF. This is something
they encourage developers of FOSS to do so that they can fully pursue
these cases. Otherwise, it is up to the original copyright holder to pursue
action (in this case that would be the jMusic people). The jMusic people
can pursue this, if they want, but what be understood is that the GPL is
a license guaranteeing rights to users (who might be developers) to have
the source code. This right is being violated currently.
On Sunday 19 July 2009, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
Maybe. I submitted details re: the LinuxSampler license to the FSF and
never heard a thing from them. If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the
latest Impro-visor
version, which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to
the terms of the GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know
and I will send it.
....
Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next
few days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the
GPL violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not
been posted along with the binaries as is legally required....
Turn this violation over to the kind folks at the FSF. They have a legal
team to pursue such, and have AFAIK, a 100% batting record. Letters from
attorneys will generally get their institutional attention.
For the OP's edification I submit this text from the GPL2 :
*3.* You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
*a)* Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
*b)* Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost
of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
*c)* Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received
the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in
accord with Subsection b above.)
There is no legal requirement for the producer to post the source code
along with the binary. The legal requirement is that he makes it
available under conditions spelled out in the license.
"Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code" in section A means to post the source code
along with the binary. Unless you go by section B, but this distribution
does not include such an offer. Section C does not apply in this situation.
I have had to deal with GPL license issues with another project, which I ended
up forking. So I had to really read the GPL properly. And what I have
indicated is exactly correct.
To paraphrase the GPL, "the source code must be available along with the
binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer
(valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the
source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee".
The binaries are distributed online, therefore I assume the source code must
also be available online, in the same location or possibly elsewhere, but
still accessible online. If the binary was on a CD/DVD, then the source has to
be on it or in some similar form accompanying it (on another CD/DVD
included), or a written offer must on the disk. There is no written offer
with this distribution, so my assumption is reasonable and in accord with the
license.
-R
3:24 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM, <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To paraphrase the GPL, "the source code must be
available along with the
binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer
(valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the
source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee".
No, this *may not* not the case here.
The GPL is a license issued by the copyright holder to others that
describes what they may do with the material and under what
conditions. The GPL license for the material does NOT apply to the
copyright holder. They may do whatever they want.
The only thing that makes the terms of the GPL of potential interest
here is if this application is linked with other GPL'ed code in a way
that makes it a derivative work. I do not know if that is the case.
--p
3:49 p.m.
On Sunday 19 July 2009 13:24:25 you wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM,
<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is exactly the case and reason why I brought this up in the first place.
I have already stated that it uses jMusic code in other posts. That is
GPL licensed software. Just open up the Impro-visor jar file and find the jm
folder for yourself, as I previously stated. They even state somewhere on the
web pages for Impro-visor that they use jMusic in it! Talk about caught with
your hand in the cookie jar. I have even contacted the jMusic people to make
sure they are aware of this situation.
So let me make this clear. This has all been investigated more than a
year ago. And the situation is exactly as I have stated, with the present
violation being due to not releasing the source code along with the binaries
(or making it available by an offer included in the distribution).
For those who think otherwise I advise you to go to the FSF site and read the
FAQ page about the GPL licenses. Many people do not properly understand or,
indeed, misinterpret how the license must be applied. That page clears all
that up once and for all. And that is what I am going by, in conjunction with
the license text.
Raymond
To paraphrase the GPL, "the source code must
be available along with the
binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer
(valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the
source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee".
No, this *may not* not the case here.
The GPL is a license issued by the copyright holder to others that
describes what they may do with the material and under what
conditions. The GPL license for the material does NOT apply to the
copyright holder. They may do whatever they want.
The only thing that makes the terms of the GPL of potential interest
here is if this application is linked with other GPL'ed code in a way
that makes it a derivative work. I do not know if that is the case. 
5 Aug
5 Aug
3:31 p.m.
On Sunday 19 July 2009 13:24:25 Paul Davis wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM,
<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you are correct in this and should this be considered a *bug* in the
GPL? Should the GPL itself require the release of the source code by the
original copyright holder as a condition of using the GPL in the first place?
Also, if I as the original author release a program under the GPL but only
supply the binary, doesn't that make things very tricky with people who might
pass on the binary to others and their requirements to supply the source?
To paraphrase the GPL, "the source code must
be available along with the
binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer
(valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the
source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee".
No, this *may not* not the case here.
The GPL is a license issued by the copyright holder to others that
describes what they may do with the material and under what
conditions. The GPL license for the material does NOT apply to the
copyright holder. They may do whatever they want.
The only thing that makes the terms of the GPL of potential interest
here is if this application is linked with other GPL'ed code in a way
that makes it a derivative work. I do not know if that is the case.
--p
all the best,
drew
5:10 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM, drew Roberts<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
On Sunday 19 July 2009 13:24:25 Paul Davis wrote:
no, because if i supplied the program to them *UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
GPL* then i must offer them source.
the difference with being the original copyright holder (note the
singular) is that i could choose to offer it to them under some other
terms instead. they would then be prohibited (presumably) from
redistributing the binary i had given them.
--p
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM,
<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you are correct in this and should this be considered a *bug* in the
GPL? Should the GPL itself require the release of the source code by the
original copyright holder as a condition of using the GPL in the first place?
Also, if I as the original author release a program under the GPL but only
supply the binary, doesn't that make things very tricky with people who might
pass on the binary to others and their requirements to supply the source? To paraphrase the GPL, "the source code must
be available along with the
binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer
(valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the
source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee".
No, this *may not* not the case here.
The GPL is a license issued by the copyright holder to others that
describes what they may do with the material and under what
conditions. The GPL license for the material does NOT apply to the
copyright holder. They may do whatever they want. 
26 Jul
26 Jul
11:35 a.m.
Dave Phillips wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Yep! There was a similar problem for LMMS, because of Beatmachine Pro. I
didn't read the LMMS dev archive, but I noticed that Beatmachine Pro is
dead now, maybe there is a solution how to handle this in the LMMS dev
mailing list archive. I stopped receiving mails from the list, when I
started overboiling. I don't know if the LMMS folks solved it or if the
Beatmachine Pro guy becomes "insightful".
On Sunday 19 July 2009, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
Maybe. I submitted details re: the LinuxSampler license to the FSF and
never heard a thing from them.
For the OP's edification I submit this text from the GPL2 :
*3.* You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
*a)* Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
*b)* Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost
of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
*c)* Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received
the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in
accord with Subsection b above.)
There is no legal requirement for the producer to post the source code
along with the binary. The legal requirement is that he makes it
available under conditions spelled out in the license.
Best,
dp If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the
latest Impro-visor version,
which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to the terms of
the GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know and I will send
it.
....
Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next few
days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the GPL
violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not been
posted along with the binaries as is legally required....
Turn this violation over to the kind folks at the FSF. They have a legal
team
to pursue such, and have AFAIK, a 100% batting record. Letters from attorneys
will generally get their institutional attention.
5622
days inactive
5639
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Dave Phillips -
drew Roberts -
Gene Heskett -
Grammostola Rosea -
laseray＠gmail.com -
Paul Davis -
Ralf Mardorf