lase...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Thanks man. I'll forward this to Bob Keller too. >>>> I think he mentioned in a message that he is willing to give developers >>>> svn access to the recent code. >>>> >>>> >>> Really. Last year I found Improvisor and wanted to contribute to it, >>> so I got in contact with Bob. I made some changes to integrate the >>> application better into the desktop (on Mac OS X also) and did some >>> initial cleanup. >>> The reaction I received was less than welcoming. In fact, the message I >>> got was that they were not interested in really allowing outside >>> developers to contribute. Thus my changes were never used, or considered >>> as far as I can tell. What I got was a bunch of excuses about the >>> situation with the application until finally this Bob guy came straight >>> out and harshly refused to cooperate on development. I even had to ask >>> numbers of time before I could finally get the source code and this >>> resulted in it finally being posted on the group. >>> Basically the group that works on it is his student research group at the >>> educational institution he is employed at. So it appears that they just >>> want to keep all the glory and credit for the application to themselves by >>> disallowing outside contributions. This is really not manner that we >>> usually associate with FOSS. The fact that you have to subscribe to a user >>> group even to get the binary is one big clue. To my mind the only reason >>> it is under GPL is because they use other libraries that are, not because >>> they see some benefit to doing so. >>> The only way to go with this application, at the moment, is to fork it. I >>> was considering doing this a while ago, but have other projects keeping me >>> busy. If you can convince them to open it up, great. I wouldn't hold my >>> breath though. If enough other developers are interested then I could give >>> some time to a fork. >>> > > >> This is what he replied me >> > > >> "If there are developers who are serious, I could provide svn access to >> our repository. Right now there are 3 people who are active. We are >> about to release version 4, which is almost a year out from version 3.39 >> that is in the user group. " >> > > >> So I think we have to go the working together way first. >> I've forwarded the message of Lasconic to him, let's wait for his reply >> on that. >> > > > No, I think you are wrong here to even consider trying to cooperate. I waited > after your initial reply to respond because obviously you weren't fully > considering my points, so I decided to see what happens. Now a preview of the > next version of impro-visor has been released and it is as I expected. No > source code, again. Blatant GPL violation again. That was unexpected, not! > > Where's that SourceForge project also? That's right, it does not exist. > > I sent a message about the missing source code, again. I wonder what excuses > he will give, again (or has he decided to not even respond to my legitimate > inquiries now). Last time it was that he was on the road or busy or <enter > lame excuse here>. He had the time to package up binaries for Linux, > Mac, and Windows, but could not zip up the source and post it at the same > time?! Go check that with him and let's see how the responses match what I am > saying. > > Now I am seriously considering forking this application myself, to make > sure that everyone can get the current source code, they do not have > to join some group just to get the binary, and that real contributions can > actually get in. Yeah, I'm a serious developer, but that guy never offered to > give me any access and the new version still has bugs that I already fixed > which he would not accept. > > I will give it a little longer, but if these people don't get their act > together and start doing things in accord with the GPL, then they should > either change their license and remove all GPL stuff or not be surprised when > a forked version appears (Improvisor+ sounds good: Improvisor, plus the source > code and the ability for others to contribute, and not needing to be in some > group just to get it, and ...). > > There has been plenty of time for them to do the right thing. Time has run > out already. Let's not be naive. Some people put out applications as GPL > just so they can say they did, but really they just want to ride on the FOSS > bandwagon to look good. Then when you try to get involved, contribute, or > ask for the source code, all of a sudden they clamp down on things and show > you that they want to control everything, as if it is a commercial proprietary > program. Sorry this does not fly with me. I have had this experience with > another project that thinks they are FOSS and that they can do no wrong. The > end result was that I did actually end up having to fork the program because > of their inability to conduct themselves properly. > > Perhaps some other people should get in contact with this project and voice > their concerns and views about how FOSS and GPL based projects do things. > If they start to do things right, then I won't have to fork it. But either > way, the source code and binaries WILL be freely available and without need > for membership in some group. Drive that point home if you will. > > > Please calm down a bit and be patience. He clearly says, he wanted first to make version 4 available and then he will make a sourceforge account.
"I am pleased to announce that a preview version of Impro-Visor version 4 is available for download in the Files area. This version includes a number of important features:" AFAIK it's just a preview version yet, so you need to be patient... I have good hope, the source will get on sourceforge after the 4 release :) \r _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev