On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 02:28 -0700, Robert Keller wrote: You should include the text of the GPL in a file usually called COPYING. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/

Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt, COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt. Is there anything else I should have? I appreciate your help. Regards, Bob On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:40 AM, Arnold Krille wrote: Robert Keller Csilla & Walt Foley Professor Computer Science Harvey Mudd College

Grammostola Rosea wrote: Everything seems to be fine now :). I guess the rest is fine tuning and can be done bit by bit ;), if there should still be anything to do. Now I'll only will watch this thread and laugh about of some of the typos etc. I made, instead of being angry about anybody or laughing about anybody else. \ralf

On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote: Do you really think this tone helps in any way whatsoever? Maybe you should try defending the GPL with more maturity than that typical of your average 12 year old. You expect people to take you seriously, stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum like this? Hell, I am a card carrying member #7026 of the FSF and (facts aside) I'm strongly inclined to side with Prof. Keller solely because of your behaviour. What kind of impact do you think you are having on people more apathetic to the issue? You are doing more harm than good. Please stop making the rest of us look bad. -dr

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:36 PM, <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote: [ ... the usual stuff ... ] You are not required to look up to anyone. Nobody has control over you. Nobody expects you to be silent about matters of importance. However, some basic civility and an awareness of how your behaviour makes the community represented by this mailing list appear would be appreciated. By me and by others here who have remained silent on the mailing list but not elsewhere. Dave would be the first (well, ok, second) to admit that he's not always the most polite developer on this list. But even his most impolite outbursts are a league above what you've demonstrated in these exchanges, particularly your recent reply to him, let alone your private email to Fons. Your goal of GPL compliance is a noble one, and entirely correct. But ... your tactics have become are really offensive to more and more of us, and to claim that you take inspiration from Stallman, the FSF or groups like the SFLC is worse still. Stallman is a master at a certain kind of humor, and he uses sardonic wit and sharp analogy to leverage his position infinitely more often than he resorts to childish put downs ... "you are a mental midget" is grade school material and serves to discredit this community in many different ways. Both the FSF and SFLC have spokespeople who are careful and guarded with their words in ways that you seem to have difficulty with. It is clearly a good thing that a program that was in utter violation of the GPL is now very much closer to being in compliance, with a reasonable chance of being fully compliant in the not too distant future. I think that you deserve a certain amount of credit for this. But your communication skills as demonstrated on this mailing list, and in the emails with Robert Keller that you posted, mark you in ways that I suspect you don't want to be marked. I can say with certainty that there are several developers on this list who would refuse to work with you on projects because of your behaviour here. You probably believe that you can live with that, given the nobility of your cause and some community of other people that you think might help you with whatever work you want to accomplish with Impro-Visor. I certainly hope that is true, because it looks like an interesting and potentially powerful program. Unfortunately, your communication style has likely poisoned a good part of the potential community of interest in ways that make its development less likely to evolve more rapidly as a result of its (eventual) compliance with the GPL. You are responsible for that, nobody else. Whether you like it or not, or believe us all to be mental midgets or some other put down that you dredge up in a further response, your emails over the last 36 hours make it far more likely that Keller and his group, not you, will get whatever cooperation might be forthcoming from other people here. And you are responsible for that too. Sleep well.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:41 PM, <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote: [ ... more of the usual ... ] The context was: Your response was a deliberate, personal insult to someone who happens to be one of the most intelligent, skilled, productive and yeah, even anti-authoritarian developers within the community that makes up this mailing list. You called him a "mental midget". Did I miss anything? "better to keep one's mouth shut and be taken for a fool than to open it and prove the case beyond all doubt".

On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 19:36 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com wrote: "Where two discourse, if the one's anger rise, The man who lets the contest fall is wise." ~ Euripides -dr

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote: Yes, it is a problem. Mr Keller, YOU ARE STILL VIOLATING THE GPL!!!!! You must use the correct version of the license or else you are VIOLATING THE GPL!!!!! Can you understand that or do you need some kind of tutor? STOP VIOLATING THE GPL!!! Raymond

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 18:58:40 Grammostola Rosea wrote: I think you need to read more on Stallman and how he vehemently defends GPL code. Not by being nice, but attacking. Then you are all trying to help someone who is not really interested in GPL. If he were then he would have ceased distributing binaries that violate the GPL, but he did not. Even after he said he would. That is why he tries to hide files on Yahoo, by banning me. I brought this whole matter up, so he knows I will keep checking. He also did that so I would not be able to get them and post them on my project. Seems real open and cooperative to me. Let him show that he is open and cooperative. Remove the need for membership on the Yahoo group, make it open for others to download the files. He does not want to. No, you are an idiot to think you have some command over me. Already explained that to you. Obviously, you do not listen either. Don't have to be. Still get results. Too bad. I did help, he did not want it. He had to be shamed into doing anything. Use your brain. And they do not act badly at all, ever. Oh, piss off. The way I am doing it, to shame him, is a tactic used by GPL legal defender organizations. Go tell them that they are giving themselves a bad name now. I am defending it, fool. -R

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:03 you wrote: That woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL. Wrong. Bob's copyright is a copyleft, fool. Show any proof that there is something against decompiling GPL code. You cannot find any. Think before writing. Raymond

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 you wrote: By not putting a licence file or giving the source. You put a license and provide the source. No more violation. Wrong. There is nothing in the GPL that says you cannot add the license before you distribute. Think about it. You get some GPL code and change the license to add in another copyright in addition to the original, as per GPL rules. Where does this text that you are adding in come from? Where does the license header come from? It does not matter. You can change the whole header to look different, get it from other files, and so on, as long as the GPL preamble and the copyrights are there. So adding in headers is no violation as long as you know the code is GPL. Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. That is the viral nature of GPL. End of story. Not putting out source or including the license files does not make his changes/code not be GPL. I think you are thinking too much in the vain of convention copyrights. The code is automatically GPL by way of use of other GPL code. It no longer is some independent proprietary code solely belonging to the original copyright holder once mixed together. Raymond

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:39:16 you wrote: I am making complete sense and you just cannot find anything in the GPL that says otherwise. Raymond

On Wednesday 29 July 2009 02:53:35 Arnout Engelen wrote: No it is entirely right and you are showing that you do not even know the most basic thing about the GPL. Everybody who has read the GPL properly knows what I wrote is true. Get of the high horse of moral superiority here. You are wrong, so this statement is really ridiculous after the fact. I never claimed the person "failed to distribute software under the GPL". I always claimed that the GPL was being violated. Here we have yet another person who is probably responding out of emotion than logic. Go back and check every message I wrote. You will not find me having written what you said. An apology for making false accusations would be fitting. I always believed the software is under the GPL and that is why I pursued this matter in the first place. To make sure everyone gets their guaranteed rights in accord with the license the program is being distributed under. You might want to read the multiple times I wrote something to that effect also. Raymond

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:11 AM, drew Roberts<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote: Arnout was referring to the case where the software was provided to you under something other than the GPL, violating someone else's license in the process. In fact, you agreed with him in another message you posted only six minutes before that one. I think that having come in late to this thorny discussion, you're tangling up two different debates: * if someone provides software to me under the GPL but doesn't do a proper job of complying with its requirements, am I at liberty to fix that in my own redistribution of it? -- yes, and this is presumably what you're answering above * if someone provides software to me that is _not_ apparently under the GPL, but it turns out to contain GPL'd code and so should have been under the GPL, am I at liberty to "fix" that by assuming my rights under the GPL, obtaining the source code (perhaps covertly) and redistributing that? -- no, not at all, and this is what Arnout and I were referring to in this thread and what your previous email appeared to agree with The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the Impro-Visor code be GPL'd, but Arnout and I were responding to the blanket "use of GPL code makes it GPL" (which would imply the second question above). Chris

On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote: You are wrong. Read the GPL. Everyone who really knows it understands that your code comes under the GPL whenever you mix it with other GPL code. That is the way it works. The fact that it was distributed improperly, according to the license, makes it a violation of the license it is under. Otherwise there could be no violation, right. Think it through. There cannot be a violation unless the license is already in force. Raymond

On Wednesday 29 July 2009 08:20:18 Chris Cannam wrote: Chris, I think this last bit is a bug in the law. As an "any third party" under 3.b) I think I should have standing but from all my reading to date, I don't. To me, that is a bug. I don't see much hope of getting that fixed though. all the best, drew

On Wednesday 29 July 2009 08:30:00 Thorsten Wilms wrote: What a ridiculous bunch of hogwash. There are no rules in place for what you say, get off the emotion bandwagon. Raymond

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:05:41 drew Roberts wrote: This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not clear. Again, this was about some app that was already distributed. Raymond

On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote: The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code and it still can be put out under another license by the original author. So you are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be considered. It was understood about an original authors copyrights. Nonetheless, any code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another license. An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come under GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the original which must be distributed under the same license. See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). Read the sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it. End of story. Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into effect. If they want to distribute their original code under a different license that can also be done. Raymond

On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:16:34 you wrote: That's funny because it is exactly what I think about your refusal to understand what is written in plain language in the GPL itself. Show me where you get your ideas. I can show you that mine come from the writing of the license. Plus, you definitely have taken one sentence and singled it out here. That is called cherry picking, taking an idea out of context to suit your own purposes. Thus it is people like you who continue to deny the actual language of the license that make it a constant chore to explain it repeatedly. Raymond

On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:37:49 you wrote: What you wrote there is essentially meaningless. The GPL is worthless and has no force according to that. All the power is outside of it and it carries no weight. I guess that is why the FSF just won a court case against Cisco for GPL violations. Make sense. Even funnier. You are just proving that you cannot provide any evidence to contradict the GPL. Provide proof of your claims. The GPL gives proof of what I claim. You have nothing, thus you resort to silly claims. Raymond

On 6 Aug 2009, at 15:05, Raymond Martin wrote: No. Because the GPL is (IANAL, but most of them seem to think) a license not a contract. The distributing party is VIOLATING the GPL by their own actions. Here's Eben Moglen on the subject: "There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and—where appropriate— attorneys’ fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL-licensed code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That’s a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL- licensed program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits." ~ Simon

On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote: Eben Moglen in http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html "Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it. This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license text, so everyone is fully informed." Check that line near the end: "no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL". Now this is a lawyer for free software saying almost exactly what I have. The assumption is that if you distribute the software then you are intending to accept the license by doing so. Thus the license applies even if you are breaking some rule or law regardless of ignorance or intention. If that is not clear enough I do not know what is. Show me how this leading legal representative for free software has got it wrong! The evidence is clear. You distribute it, then you are accepting the license and it applies to your code. What possible counter-argument can there be left? Raymond

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining why you're wrong) Chris

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorf<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote: For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following one) again for Raymond, with attribution: Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: "The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. "

Raymond Martin wrote: Hi Raymond :) I searched the web and discussed this also off-list. Today in the early morning I sent this to Paul: "[snip] There's another sentence, with an interesting issue in Germany. It can become impossible to claim one's due, e.g. it's forbidden to decompile software that's not GPL'd but be suspected to use GPL'd code. The one who file a claim against the company that was violating the GPL allegedly didn't decompile the software, but watched the booting. If he would have decompiled the software, the court were not allowed to pronounce the sentence against the company that violated the GPL. [snip]" Oops, after sending something on broken English I can see mistakes I made, but I won't correct them, but I'll add that this was at Oktober/04/2006, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License). There's no file reference of the court, but for another example there is a file reference, I don't guess this German Wiki is publishing a fake, even if I didn't verify it extensive enough. There are a lot of links on English saying the same. If you violate the GPL, you're still the copyright holder of your own code and it's not allowed to decompile it by others and it won't become GPL'd automatically, in addition in Germany you are even not allowed to decompile code in order to prove that there was GPL'd code stolen. You are wrong, or German courts are wrong and lawyers, maybe faked lawyers, are liars. There are a lot of "translations" of the GPL's legal terminology in the web. I don't think this will be a big conspiracy, so I won't verify all those links. A lot of links to this topic were posted before. Cheers, Ralf

On Friday 07 August 2009 09:51:05 you wrote: Which was so obviously GPL to begin with. And was obviously intended to be completely under the GPL in any release. Previous actions on his part show it was GPL already. You would be very hard pressed to prove in a court that the code wasn't intended to be under GPL in the first place. This is a very important point you are jumping over. There was a definite intention for ALL the code to be GPL, not just the old portion that was already out. There was NO intention for the MODS to be proprietary. There is a trail of public evidence of this. So this idea that you cannot decompile something INTENDED to be GPL in the first place is moot. In law it is called circumstances. They must be considered. Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF says: "But most proprietary software companies want more power than copyright alone gives them. These companies say their software is ``licensed'' to consumers, but the license contains obligations that copyright law knows nothing about. Software you're not allowed to understand, for example, often requires you to agree not to decompile it. Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation, the prohibition is just a contract term you agree to as a condition of getting the software when you buy the product under shrink wrap in a store, or accept a ``clickwrap license'' on line. Copyright is just leverage for taking even more away from users." Indicates right there that there is nothing prohibiting decompilation, unless you agree in a contract not to do it. GPL is a license and there is no agreement to not decompile GPL programs because there is no contractual agreement not to do so. Thus, in the present case, decompilation does not result in any violation at all. All the code was and is GPL, decompiling a fully GPL program cannot result in any wrongdoing. Distributing it neither. Raymond

On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:51:08AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: Which makes perfect sense. In a civilised society even a convicted thief retains all the rights to his legally acquired property. If any of it has to be seized, for example to compensate his victims, that action can be taken only by a court. Not by his victims or some self- appointed vigilante. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 09:14:23AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote: The cases you mention such as border crossings are all related to security and not to civil justice. There are other special cases, if you drive drunk and kill someone the car you used will be seized as well, even if it's not your property. But even this requires a court order, which can be retroactive. Regardless of all this: a private person or group can't ever do this. Only law enforcement or the justice system can, and in the case of the first it is temporary (for securtiy or investigation), and if not it needs confirmation by a court. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

On Friday 07 August 2009 10:07:31 Fons Adriaensen wrote: Splitting hairs. The fact that it is security and not justice makes these cases even more extreme in their betrayal of justice. There are cases in the US, for instance, where people growing marijuana for their medical conditions have had their homes seized and never returned. No justice there. That's real police stuff. Not so. In most cases of seizure at borders (e.g., US/Canada, US/Mexico) the property is never returned, ever. The people who loose their property never get a day in court, ever. Look it up, it is a fact. Raymond

On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:39:44AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote: You are completely missing the point, which is: *You*, as a private person, can not seize anything, ever. And if you think it's immoral for the law to do it, then it is even more so if someone takes the law into his own hands and appoints himself to be cop, judge and executioner. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

On Friday 07 August 2009 13:10:50 Raymond Martin wrote: I don't see you as having done something wrong in the case you lay out, just maintaining that it is ok to do something similar which people are saying is wrong. That is in a similar case but where there is no intent to make a program GPL but linking that program with GPL code. Saying that that resulting program is automatically under the GPL despite author claims to the contrary and then, by logic, that it is OK to decompile that and put the source up under the GPL. From what I see, if I release a binary and claim it is GPL but fail to release the source, it is OK to decompile that binary and put up the source. Naturally, forking a GPL project is OK. There does seem to be a good amount of "dug in" in the mix now though. all the best, drew

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Robert Keller<keller(a)cs.hmc.edu> wrote: One of our members? Nobody else on this list had ever heard of him either, until this thread blew up. I do take your point, though. Chris

On Friday 07 August 2009 19:11:36 Fons Adriaensen wrote: How conveniently you left off the fact that I am a developer on the Nyquist project. And? Raymond

Thomas Vecchione wrote: I'm not interested to take sides, I only want to learn about the GPL. Assumed that Miss B. forks a GPL'd project, as far as I understand the GPL, Miss R. is allowed to fork a project with a similar name, similar function, based on the open source code of Miss B. and if Miss B. had no time to open the source code, because she was in the manicure salon, but Miss B. accepted the GPL, e.g. a mailing list for manicure software can witness this, than Miss R. is allowed to decompile the software of Miss B.. Am I wrong? If Miss B. would use GPL'd code and won't agree to the GPL, than Miss B. is violating the GPL, but Miss R. isn't allowed to decompile the software of Miss B., because of copyright laws. Am I wrong? But again, Miss B. accepted the GPL, but while the nail polish needs to dry, she wasn't able to distribute the source code, she only had time to distribute the binary. She wrote exactly this to the manicure developers mailing list, that's why Miss R. decided to decompile the code. The situation is a little bit tricky and Miss R. is less liked by the manicure developers list, while Miss B. is liked by the list. And that's why little differences are easily overlooked. Justizia should be blindfolded ;) and even take care of little differences. Ralf

Thomas Vecchione wrote: It's weekend :D. Okay, I guess you're right, because I have two web browsers, one is called Firefox and the other is called Iceweasel, for me, as a user they only differ by the name and logo and there seems to be a reason for this ;). Icevamp or Hotvamp instead of Improvisor might be an alternative. I agree, that's why laws are construable, have some margin. It's impossible to factor in every devisable situation. Everybody seems to understand the GPL and the law after that long discussion for this basic issues. Here is a basic issue, with an unusual exception. I guess even two judges could pronounce two different sentences, in the same town, at the same court. Ralf

Thomas Vecchione wrote: Hi Seablade :) normally "unusual exception" is a linguistic tautology, because normally "exceptions" are "unusual", but I guess for juridically stuff there are exceptions that occur frequently. This one really seems to be an exceptionally exception. E.g. Miss B. promised to accept the GPL, that might give Miss R. the right to decompile the application, but Miss R. suspected Miss B. to be a liar and if Miss B. would be a liar and not accept the GPL, Miss R. might not have the right to decompile it, OTOH the list believes Miss B., therefore whatever Miss R. is thinking, she might have the right to decompile it, OTOH accepting the GPL without coming along with the GPL ... this could become a never ending story. I wonder that at this point nobody is very badly annoyed about this dispute, because it has become a useless back and forth. I guess I'll shut up now, as long as there will be not another issue about the GPL. Best, Ralf

Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS, the creative commons should be forced as an agreement or something similar to this. Now I guess I really should shut up.

Something funny about confusing names. For my needs jconv can be a very good audio application and a very useless Japanese code conversion.

On Saturday 08 August 2009 06:45:25 Raymond Martin wrote: Ah. Trademarks can be used properly with Free Software. For the benefit of the trademark holder's users rather than for the benefit of the trademark holder. From the users side, trademarks are valuable to me as they can help me determine if I am getting something from someone I trust rather than someone I don't trust. To me, this is a reasonable use. Using them in an attempt to get or emulate vendor lock in is not a reasonable use with Free Software in my estimation. My simplistic take waiting to be further informed. all the best, drew

On Saturday 08 August 2009 09:59:45 Raymond Martin wrote: Personally, when it comes to my stuff, I do. I tend to do more on the artistic side than on the code side and run into what I consider even more objections to this attitude on my part, but "fork" my copyleft stuff all you want. For myself, I still think it remains to be seen whether I am a better, starter, middle guy, or finisher. Far be it from me to try and block others from trying on the various roles when everyone is playing together if a Free system. I get your eco-system bit but still think trademarks (or their equivalents) can be useful to let others know whose work they are dealing with. Just as I might not want John putting his name on your code or your name on his if I trusted you and not John. If you think back to the days when many could not write but made their mark instead and think of a trademark being used simply as an alternate signature and only for that simple purpose, then my thinking might make more sense. all the best, drew

Raymond Martin wrote: That's right, I mentioned it before, that there is this company, but they don't have an interest in or don't know about Bob's "trademark". Anyway, there is that Firefox vs Icedove fact. The names and logos also can become a problem for FLOSS. Even if Bob is violating a trademark, you do it too. But the discussion becomes useless. If anybody isn't fine with the other, and now I'm talking about Bob and you, than Bob or you should file a lawsuit. Even if everybody from this list would only back Bob or just back you, this would not be capable.

Raymond Martin wrote: I worked for a microphone company that wasn't fine with the same name for a product, that was for medical use without any microphone. In my home town there was a car tyre dealer using the same name as a radio station. In Germany they don't need to be on similar things. Bob's and your projects are similar, so you project is similar to the proprietary project too, if Bob's project should be similar to this project. Definitive my last words to this issue :S. :) Ralf

Do you think a trademark is void if the thing differs by being forked and proprietary? Calling a gratis Cola "Coca~Cola" is allowed?

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Raymond Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Raymond, I notice that your binary distribution of Impro-Visor lacks a copyright note identifying the authors -- the README could be taken to imply that you are the author, although I realise you didn't intend that. Can you fix this, please? I know this sort of thing is easily overlooked, but it's probably illegal and certainly unethical to redistribute someone else's work without attribution (a basic necessity of copyright which the GPL doesn't disclaim). Thanks, Chris

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Raymond Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Copyright law does; after all, that's the only thing that makes the GPL work. But I'm happy to admit that I'm quite unclear on this point, namely whether it's technically legal (even if offensively bad form) to redistribute binaries of a GPL'd work without any of the attribution that is required in redistributing the source code. I'd be interested in any more information about this. (Preferably not from you -- you've asserted too many wrong or disputable opinions as if they were fact for me to give any credibility to anything you write -- but other citations would be of interest.) Chris

On Sunday 09 August 2009 12:41:26 Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: When are people going to stop sending spam to this list. Give up people. Let these threads die already. Raymond

On Friday 07 August 2009 17:31:36 Robert Keller wrote: Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF documentation somewhere exactly about this point and they vehemently disagree with any attitude like that. We all know very well the situation of Emacs, Xemacs, and various other forks. So it is just too bad that he does not understand the benefits to his own project by having similarly named forks, but this is no surprise given his other misunderstandings about the GPL and free software. Some of that is nonsense. No, he is leaving because he realized that not everyone is going to automatically side with him on these matters. And in case you all do not realize it yet, there is no fork. So all this crap he is blasting out is stupid. There is only an SF project that hosts code for the exact same program, with no real changes to them. This is the typical behavior that I saw in the person, jumping to conclusions without checking the facts. See for yourself. There is a possibility of a fork, but no such thing exists at present. Raymond

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 Simon Jenkins wrote: Where do you see this breaking down? Let's take a few made up examples: I write a program from scratch. I compile it and release the binary only but claim the program is under the GPL. Is it? Can anyone force me to give them the source? Can anyone "de-compile" the binary and release that source under the GPL? Say instead, I start with a the GPL source to a program you wrote, I modify it and release the binary under the GPL. When asked for the source I refuse and possibly claim the dog ate it. Is my modified program under the GPL? Does my making the claim about the dog matter at all? Since I claim the binary is GPL, can you legally "de-compile" my released binary and put appropriate GPL notices on the resulting source? Are there any other cases that need to be considered? all the best, drew

On 6 Aug 2009, at 01:44, drew Roberts wrote: Yes. One of you is missing the source code ;) From "What is Copyleft?" (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/copyleft.html) "To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, THE CODE AND THE FREEDOMS BECOME LEGALLY INSEPARABLE" [Emphasis mine] From the FSF GPL Howto: (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html) "Whichever license you plan to use, THE PROCESS INVOLVES ADDING TWO ELEMENTS TO EACH SOURCE FILE of your program: a copyright notice (such as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL)." [Emphasis mine] IANAL etc etc but these both suggest that the source code is where the copyright and license REALLY reside, hence no actual source == no actual license regardless of whether the distributor TOLD you a binary was GPL, or even supplied you with the text of the GPL to go with it. ~ Simon

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:28:05 you wrote: Oh my goodness, I made a mistake. I saw the post late because I was out deep sea diving, my dog caught on fire, ... Will anybody forgive me? Wait, it does not matter. YOU ARE STILL VIOLATING THE GPL on the Yahoo group. I checked. Raymond

Grammostola Rosea wrote: Also in the "about" tab... it says version 3... you should fix that. About support, are you planning to stick with that Yahoo group or are there plans for mailing lists too? Regards, \r

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 05:08:49 Grammostola Rosea wrote: GPL violations on SF right away. Good work Keller. Another GPL violation on SF. You have to supply everything to build the application. And, again, my project is still there with all the files. Keller was wrong, as I said previously. Raymond