On Monday 27 July 2009 15:16:15 Robert Keller wrote: > Dear linux-audio developers, > > I have created New Project https://sourceforge.net/projects/impro- > visor/ for Impro-Visor, which is its correct name.
It is the correct name for "Impro-Visor". My project is named Improvisor for a reason. And you see, I could have easily chosen Impro-Visor, but I did not on purpose. My project is not just about the original version. I wish you would please try to reason things out a little more. My project can have the original and forked versions. In which case the forks would not be Impro-Visor in the absolute sense, would they. So at least a slight different name seemed appropriate. Now say thank you for me leaving that name open for you. What! No thank you, how uncivil. > I will populate the > source later today, as I need time to get acquainted with their > system, but I have to be off right now to another important meeting > for the afternoon and can't do it instantly. The source I will post > will be our version 4.0. Now that was not difficult was it. > > Regarding the assertion made earlier by another that I did not contact > sourceforge about the fork 'improvisor', see the forwarded message. > The fact that SF did not remove the other project immediately does not > mean they won't. Not everything happens at lightspeed. It would be a > true indication of courtesy and cooperation if the creator of that > project were simply to remove 'improvisor' as a possible source of > confusion. If not, I will consider the options regarding this action. If SF asks me then I will change it, not remove it (unless it is obligatory). I do not owe anything to the original project and can do what I want within the rules of the GPL, and those of SF, if and or when they apply. > Forking at 3.39 would not really be a problem for me, but it seems > that there would be less stress and duplication of effort overall if > we were to proceed as I am suggesting. A year of development has been > put in between 3.39 and 4.0. (Why so long, you ask? For one thing > because of changes started by students, but not integrated, sometimes > take a long time to integrate.) Makes no difference. There is no obligation for me or anyone else to make it easier for anybody. Development can be conducted in any way that a project sees fit, in accord with applicable licenses/rules. As to the SF notice to him. Phoney, baloney. I never said that he did not contact them. I trying say that I seriously doubt his claim. That is just the usual message to people when they try to make a complaint about copyright infringement. He was making it sound like he had a legitimate claim. What a bunch of BS. SF will go to my project get the packages, open them up and see no infringements at all. Same code/binaries + GPL license equals all in accord with the law and the SF rules. Read them, learn them, know them. I do. Egg on the face or eating crow is not so good though. Raymond > From: "SourceForge.net Support" <sfnet_...@corp.sourceforge.com> > Date: July 27, 2009 9:20:36 AM PDT > To: bob.kel...@hmc.edu > Subject: Re: Project: Improvisor has been reported as inappropriate > > Hello, > > Based on your complaint, it appears that you may wish to report a case > of copyright infringement. SourceForge.net deals expediently with > reports of copyright infringement. > > To report copyright infringement, please use our DMCA Notification > Procedure as per > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sitelegal/wiki/DMCA%20Notification%20Procedure > > Regards, > Chris Tsai > SourceForge Support > sfnet_...@corp.sourceforge.com > > PS. When you submitted this report, you did not leave us any contact > info to reply to. As such, I've taken the liberty of looking up your > e-mail the Harvey Mudd College directory search. I trust this was not > a problem. > _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev