laseray(a)gmail.com wrote: The guy removed the preview version from his website. You don't have to release the source of development versions. You don't have to make your source available, but people who gets your binaries should be able to get the source too. Mmhh I'd rather saw a better corporation here. I don't know who is non-coorporative here though, Raymond or Bob Keller. Maybe it would be good to invite Bob Keller for a reasonable dialogue on this list. I like to hear his opinion about corporation. After such a public discussion we can decide whether there are good reasons to bundle forces on _his_ project or to fork it. my 2 cents, \r

laseray(a)gmail.com wrote: I asked this on #gnu , they told me, it is not necessary Same #gnu We will see how it goes. For myself I wait to see how Bob acts in the coming time. I'm happy though that more people seems to have interest in this project. Regards, \r

On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 16:23 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote: GPL is a license the copyright holder may or may not use to distribute his work. Having done a release under GPL, however, does not further encumber the copyright holder: he may decide to never release any new development under GPL or choose, as many people choose, to release only stable releases. The idea behind GPL is that if someone else modifies the code and redistributes this work, he must provide the code (under the same license) for anyone receiving the software. That is the point of the license. Note that the copyright holder may stop handing out the software under GPL. Copies made before this decision may be redistributed as per GPL if the copier (=licensee) wants to (or is obliged to, as per the license) redistribute it. However, the fact that the author has given out this software under GPL earlier does not give you leverage to force the authors hand to get the source code of previous or future versions: he doesn't distribute it under GPL anymore. It's analogous to the copyright holder changing the price of his product: previously the price was $0.00 (plus the viral nature of the license) while you would now have to pay $10,000.00 and sign an NDA. (Of course this becomes much more hairy when there are more than one copyright holders. Or mixed licenses.) Sampo

Hi, On Sunday 26 July 2009 00:14:45 Sampo Savolainen wrote: The main point I remembered from the last thread with "Impro-Visor" in the title: It uses gpl software itself. Which means that it has to publish the modifications of that part at least. And as the software is GPL licensed, the source _has_ to be made available at least on request by ways equally convinient as the binaries (afaik this ruling in the gpl-text wants to prevent that requests for the source-code have to be written on 200$ notes or that the >1million lines of code are sent via fax or snail-mail). If someone says software A is released as GPL and doesn't release the source (upon request) its not GPL. If software A uses GPL software it has to be valid GPL software itself. (I probably get corrected by Paul Davis in the next answer...) Have fun, Arnold

Hi, On Sunday 26 July 2009 09:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote: <snip> There is a nice page on the fsf website explaining the differences between gpl and lgpl for libraries. The basic essence (as far as I understand it) is: If you want all apps using your lib to be gpl (or free) use gpl for your lib. If you want more spread against competitors and thus allow closed-source development using your lib, use lgpl. So the fact that Improvisor uses (and ships!) the gpl-ed jmusic, this makes improvisor gpl. Not providing the source for improvisor (not even upon request) is a violation of the gpl. Everyone has the right to complain about that, the jmusic guys even have the right to sue against this. Have fun, Arnold

Sampo this is not true. The license is in every source file: This Java Class is part of the jMusic API version 1.5, March 2004.> Copyright (C) 2000 Andrew Sorensen & Andrew Brown This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

On Sunday 26 July 2009 03:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote: Whether you use another GPL library as code, directly compiled in, or linked to externally makes no difference under the GPL. This is just another case of where people have not gone to the FSF and read the FAQ page on GPL. This is true. Not a violation in itself, but it does obscure the situation. Most projects that use GPL usually make it well-known. You don't have to, but given the previous actions of these folks it does not exactly look like they are trying to be above board on the matter. It does not make any difference whether the copyright holder of Impro-Visor declares it as GPL or not. Once you use GPL code in your application it too must be GPL. That is the viral nature of GPL. Again, FSF and the FAQ on GPL. Read it. Sure, but again not relevant to the current situation. Can we stick to the topic, please. Both. A few days ago I put up a GPL header direct from one of the java files in Impro-Visor to make it clear that I was certain they were violating the GPL. Impro-Visor compiles in the jMusic code, which makes it even more evident that there is a violation. And the header clearly mentions using jMusic. So there is no mystery in whether this under GPL or that violations have occurred. Raymond

On Sunday 26 July 2009 15:53:30 nescivi wrote: I tried last year to contact them and just recently. No response either time, but now the binaries were taken down so no real point. I will try again soon. I am also going look more into jMusic while working on this program. There may be improvements I can contribute. So maybe I will have some communication then. Raymond

Hiho, On Sunday 26 July 2009 16:29:45 laseray(a)gmail.com wrote: as far as I know, the Andrews Sorensen and Brown are now writing the software Impromptu for livecoding; their email adresses may have changed since they wrote jMusic, which may explain the lack of reply. sincerely, Marije

On Saturday 25 July 2009 19:20:35 Arnold Krille wrote: Why not? Careful now. If I give you an original binary of mine and a GPL license to it, do you want to have the rights to my program that the GPL gives you or would you rather it be treated as an all rights reserved copyright program? (I wrote earlier today about this case being a possible bug in the GPL text itself, but after reading / thinking / writing more today, I am not so sure. Or be in violation of A's copyrights, or? all the best, drew

On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:04:05 Grammostola Rosea wrote: Right. Unless you distribute the development versions then: as you say, the people who get the dev binaries have the right to get the dev source if you want to obey the GPL of the source you incorporate. This stuff is so much easier to do *full blown correctly* than to try and skirt close to the edge though. all the best, drew

On Sunday 26 July 2009 10:04:27 you wrote: More than a year of chances are more than enough. You cannot continually give people chances forever when it is obvious they just don't want to do the right thing. It may not matter if that guy changes things (e.g., license) once there is a fork. It is not as if other people cannot write code you know. The currently available source code is starter material for that. I wish people would think over what has already been written about this topic before they respond. People should not remain ever patient with those who act improperly. At some point you just have to act, not wait on the side until someone else gives you the okay. Imagine how much in this world would not get done if we all waited for others to smarten up. You give people a chance, then when they don't come through just get to it. That is what has happened here. Tune into that facts, please. Raymond

On Sunday 26 July 2009 10:52:43 you wrote: Sure. You do not have to be diplomatic about everything. You have to be right about what you are trying to accomplish. So I am really sick to death of people that think you have to be all nice, all the time. That is just noise. There is a time for nice, but then you need to get something done also. I'll stick with the pragmatic side of things and get something done. Raymond

Ralf, I think you have a misimpression, created by laseray (aka biophotoray aka Raymond Martin), who apparently is trying to steal control of my project, known as Impro-Visor. I do want to cooperate, and will be looking into what I can do to repair the damage he is causing. However, I need a little time, because I just got back from Europe and this is not my only obligation today. I can't move on the immediate demands of others, as this person seems to think. It would not be wise to contribute to his fork meanwhile, because there is a much more recent version that has not been released yet, including bug fixes to the preview version which was posted briefly as an executable (the only thing that is behind his asserted 'violation'). For reference, I include below a message from Raymond which exposes his intent. Whether or not there was a violation on my part, it is no excuse for his sort of malicious behavior. As I am not formerly a member of the linux-audio-dev community, I just now joined as a result of this. I must appeal to the reasonable members to understand and help me. Thank you. Regards, Bob Keller Impro-Visor project director Professor of Computer Science Harvey Mudd College Claremont, California 91711 ----- Begin message from biophotoray(a)yahoo.ca to keller On Friday 24 July 2009 19:52:48 you wrote: this current What I have said is absolutely true, you are in denial. I have every right to claim so. You violate a license then you are a violator. What part of that do you not understand? Okay, no need to go on, but just don't be surprised if I fork the application or distribute the binary and source on other sites, including the preview version, which I have backwards engineered to obtain the source code already. There is nothing that in the GPL that says I cannot do those things. Also, don't be surprised when other people coming asking about this separate site/version. Don't be surprised when it has a very similar name also, there is no trademark on the term "Impro-Visor" and it is free software so there is very little that can be done about it. Say what you want then, but I will definitely explain the situation also and make it known why it exists and the history that brought it to be. Raymond End message from biophotoray(a)yahoo.ca to keller On Jul 26, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Robert Keller Csilla & Walt Foley Professor Computer Science Harvey Mudd College

Hi Raymond :) hi list :) laseray(a)gmail.com wrote: My recommendation is, that Bob forge the project within the next 3 month, that he will be the head of the project, but coders from the community get access to the source directories, after they have shown by some patches, that they are able to program, or what ever the regular way for FLOSS projects might be. 1. I can't see that Raymond causes a damage. 2. I understand that Bob and Raymond got exited. Now we should find a solution that's fine for all of us (and not take a stance if someone is good or bad). For the community there isn't a "much more recent version" at the moment. For some of us, me too, it feels bad if a binary done with FLOSS is released without the source code, even if it's a preview version and even if no licence is broken. I don't know if in this case a licence is or isn't broken. Yes, it was noticeable that he quoted a PM. I don't care about this, because we are humans and sometimes everybody of us make mistakes. Maybe we can try to find something similar to this and stop anything else: "My recommendation is, that Bob forge the project within the next 3 month, that he will be the head of the project, but coders from the community get access to the source directories, after they have shown by some patches, that they are able to program, or what ever the regular way for FLOSS projects might be." At least the source code should be available within the next 3 month. Ralf

Grammostola Rosea wrote: Full ACK. Full ACK.

On Monday 27 July 2009 12:16:17 you wrote: Bob can certainly do that. It is his, or his groups, right to do that. It also is the right of anybody who gets the application. So, as I have said previously, there is no "we" to discuss this anymore. I tried to reason, use logic, point to the license, etc. None of that works. No matter how many times I say "read the GPL" or "read the FAQ page for the GPL", it just does not seem to be done. So there is no point in trying anymore. A separate project exists now. And whatever work is done on it will be to improve it. That is the point of having a project. Never mind this hand waving that is done to try to convince others that a fork can never be as good as the original or that some damage is done. These are typical tactics of those who do not want others to have any control. There is no damage, find some real evidence of that (not just pumped up emotions or other questionable things). It is very difficult to show damage on an offering that is free software. It is given away at no cost, without warranty, etc. So are forks of it, when they exist. Trying to hold someone up to some "imaginary" damage is a snowball in hell. Raymond

hi bob! welcome to the linux audio developers' community, thanks for joining this list. i'm sorry that you are joining for rather unfortunate reasons, but licensing issues are always controversial and have a way of attracting hot-heads... so please don't be offended. i'll try to refrain from taking sides, as you and raymond seem to have some history togesther... the way i see it (and i may be mistaken, all my facts come from this and previous threads), your code is including other code which is licensed under the gpl. you can only legally do this if your code is also put under the gpl. which means that the moment you distribute your application, its source code must be made available, as it is now a derivative work of the other code you included (no matter how small), and its license demands that. no way around this. (strictly speaking, not even a busy travelling schedule, because you are not under obligation to some random strangers, but to the license of part of your software). which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking your project any way he sees fit. so much for the legal part. as to communication skills, raymond, i think you should go get a nice cup of coffee, tone down a bit, see what happens. this bears all the hallmarks of a excuse my french pissing contest, which might be explained by the history of your mutual correspondence, but from the outside, it looks like no big deal at all, and should sort itself out nicely. bob, i'm not a lawyer, but the way i see it, your options are: * comply with the gpl, which means your code is gpl also, and the source has to be available the moment a binary version comes out (even previews, betas, whatever). and then you have the risk that somebody "takes control away" from you. (not really a problem, see below.) * take your code proprietary, which means replacing all gpl code by self-developed or more leniently licensed code. that doesn't change the fact that all your code written up to *now* is covered by the gpl, but you could then relicense it and all future development any way you see fit. obviously, as a lover of (and believer in) open-source, i would warmly recommend option #1, although i've been with universities long enough to know about the difficulties involved in fund-raising for open source projects. as for "control", well, of course there is always the possibility of a fork, but then it's a fair free market for users and mindshare. if you decide to go proprietary, any gpl fork will likely see considerable uplift, and more than one company have made themselves obsolete by such a move - that's always the risk. on the other hand, if you decide to open up your stuff and encourage participation, your application will profit from an enlarged user and contributor base, while you still maintain control. as for taking patches: if people want to contribute and you can incorporate their work, great, it will make your project stronger. sometimes, your idea of software architecture might differ from that of a contributor, so you will reject patches. perfectly ok. of course, once many people have found their patches been turned down for reasons not entirely transparent or logical to them, there is new potential for a fork. or there may just be personality clashes, leading to a fork eventually. that's how it is. but market forces have a way of eliminating weak branches of a project rather speedily. i hope i was able to contribute some clarifying remarks. please take everything you read here with a metric grain of salt, and be aware that licensing issues happen to be very important to the open source crowd. it would be great to have you and your team join the open source community at large and see you on this list in the future - you will find there is quite some knowledge here that might be worth tapping into. best, jörn

laseray(a)gmail.com wrote: no, but it helps. particularly if/when you assume the role of a project leader. i have no idea what makes you so irritable n- just kick back and relax. for us, a fork is something natural and no big deal at all. i guess you are just trying to make a point. perfectly valid reason for forking. for somebody who is not accultured to the open source ways and customs (as in, "look, it's free, let's use it"), a fork must feel like a threat. it's easy to clarify that misconception, and will lead to an altogether more productive outcome. being accused of license violation (no matter how valid) is certainly something that will drive most people into a defensive position. you have a point, but i think with a little more ease the whole thing wouldn't have escalated to "tell X he's violating the gpl"-style discussions, which, frankly, is ridiculous. why not just quietly smile to yourself with the warm fuzzy feeling of being right? without snide remarks for a week or so, everybody will beget a hundred projects and live happily ever after. and now grandfather must retire to bed.

On Monday 27 July 2009 16:02:47 Chris Cannam wrote: It is moot. I previously gave proof of the GPL header in one of the Java files of one of the packages up on my project. So there was never any question of whether this was GPL or proprietary. Raymond

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 08:33:30PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: (and lots more) While being away to have dinner at some nice place in the Italian countryside I've been musing about writing to prof. Keller. No need to do so as Joern has basically said everything I'd wanted to say. But I want to repeat his welcome, and would want to reassure Bob that most of us are considerably less corrosive and rude than the one member he's had to deal with up to now. Kind regards from hot Parma, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.