On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 13:34 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
> Size of GPL code included is irrelevant. True. > Inappropriate expectations. No license file was included in distribution, > no text to indicate GPL. GPL violation #1. Yes, but I'm willing to believe it was negligence. > These are excuses. Not buying it. A bunch of rubbish. Assuming > your users are dumb is very impolite. Assuming that your users would have trouble dealing with source code is very different from assuming they are dumb. > You don't have to accept every suggestion. That is fine. But my suggestions > which were actually real code were better than what you were doing. So the > refusal was quite illogical. My code was GPL, so no problem there. The > suggestions I made will make there way into the fork, then others will > wonder what the heck was Bob thinking to refuse these practical bug > fixes. Maybe it's true, but you do sound very arrogant and pushy to me ;) > Again, irrelevant. Excuses, excuses. All over the place. Stick to > the license, then there is no problem. Sure. But it sounds like it was an honest mistake. Even if it wasn't your aggressive tone doesn't help at all. > This contains some lies. The first message I received from Bob had > an insulting tone to it, as if I was doing something wrong by asking for the > source. Nice attempt at back-paddling. Rubbish, throughout. We all know how clear-cut tone in emails is ;p What is anyone supposed to do with lots of hearsay, anyway? > If you want respect, give respect. Stop assuming you are somehow in a better > position. It is very condescending. I see a 50% chance you should apply those lines to yourself. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev