Re: [LAD] Attribution for Community Approval
> > > Anyway that is the reason I delete the "or any later" term in my copyright > notices. Apart from the fact that one can never know whether gpl4 will give > all the rights exclusively to microsoft or google or the nsa... > > I have always wondered about this, as it never made sense to me to license your work under something which doesn't exist yet, and you don't know what its terms will be! Will the GPL5 also give away rights to your organs along with the software? Probably not, but I'm not willing to risk it. Jeremy ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Attribution for Community Approval
On Saturday 29 January 2011 22:42:16 Arnold Krille wrote: > On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:52:06 Jeremy Salwen wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille wrote: > > > Oh, changing the license without the permission from all > > > copyright-holders is > > > the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless > > > whether > > > you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2 or > > > later" to > > > "gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"... > > > > Actually, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. When you > > distribute "under the terms of the GPL2 or later", that means I can > > accept your program under the terms of the GPL3. The terms of the GPL3 > > say that I can modify it and redistribute it under the GPL3. Similarly > > for the GPL2. Notice the language says "*or* later", not "*and* later". > > I get to choose which license I agree to. Otherwise, it would be > > pointless to even offer it under the "GPL 2 or later" because I would > > *have* to distribute it under the GPL3, which places further > > restrictions on top of the GPL2, meaning that it would effectively be > > under the GPL3 no matter what. > > You are right. Redistributing code from "gpl2 or any later" can happen > under gpl3 or any later. Now what about redistributing it under "gpl3 > only"? Stupid me, of course one can relicense it under "gpl3 only"... "gpl2 or later" includes redistribution with "gplX or later" and "gplX only" with X>=2. Off to bed, Arnold signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 15:11 -0500, Raymond Martin wrote: > > To remember: If copyrights were not explicitly and in writing signed > > over to you then they were not. > > > > /j > > The copyright in the license is the credit! These are dire straits. I am afraid your ship is heading towards the cliffs. Read your charts again, carefully, before proceeding. SCO also had some imaginative ideas about copyright. They were wrecked! /j ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Attribution for Community Approval
On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:52:06 Jeremy Salwen wrote: > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille wrote: > > Oh, changing the license without the permission from all > > copyright-holders is > > the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless > > whether > > you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2 or > > later" to > > "gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"... > Actually, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. When you > distribute "under the terms of the GPL2 or later", that means I can accept > your program under the terms of the GPL3. The terms of the GPL3 say that I > can modify it and redistribute it under the GPL3. Similarly for the GPL2. > Notice the language says "*or* later", not "*and* later". I get to choose > which license I agree to. Otherwise, it would be pointless to even offer > it under the "GPL 2 or later" because I would *have* to distribute it > under the GPL3, which places further restrictions on top of the GPL2, > meaning that it would effectively be under the GPL3 no matter what. You are right. Redistributing code from "gpl2 or any later" can happen under gpl3 or any later. Now what about redistributing it under "gpl3 only"? Anyway that is the reason I delete the "or any later" term in my copyright notices. Apart from the fact that one can never know whether gpl4 will give all the rights exclusively to microsoft or google or the nsa... Have fun, Arnold signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Raymond Martin wrote:
> It won't hurt, but is not required in any way, shape, or form. And that is
> what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is
> absolutely required.
no. they, we, i am acting as though you'd better have a pretty reason
("lack of sleep", "just forgot", "dog ate the webpage" will almost do,
so its not much of a barrier) for NOT providing attribution if you do
NOT want the rest of the community to conclude that you're a douchebag
for forking a project. not because you need to, but because if you
want people to think nice thoughts about your motives as a forker,
being nice towards the original development time is likely to help
quite a bit.
however, i think your posts here have made it clear that you're the
sort of person who is not in the least bit concerned of whether people
have a positive opinion of you, and if that's true, then certainly you
can ignore everything but the license and nothing bad will happen from
your perspective.
in the specific case of OOM, i'm still not sure i really understand
why they didn't provide any attribution originally, but they have now,
and so the case is closed there. they are now "nice guys" doing more
than following licenses, by actually behaving as if they are part of a
community. neither they, or you, or i are required to behave in that
way, but i know that i certainly believe that the community does
better when people do.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote: > It won't hurt, but is not required in any way, shape, or form. And that is > what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is > absolutely required. You absolutely misread it. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] OT - git rebase - was [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On 01/29/2011 10:01 PM, Robin Gareus wrote: > On 01/28/2011 04:37 PM, torbenh wrote: > >> you really need to keep your history clean. >> take a bit of time. use git rebase -i >> before you push stuff upstream. >> (or at least before you merge it into the master branch) >> >> this makes me sad. > > Hi Torben, > > Was that meant as sarcasm (kill the git hitory) or seriously - allow > upsteam to cherry-pick easily? > > I rarely use rebase and only on local topic branches that have never > been pushed to a public repo. It changes the history and will cause > problems to anyone who has pulled that branch before. > > Since you are a git guru, could you please elaborate? > answering [part of] my own question, "git guru" was the key: http://gitguru.com/2009/02/03/rebase-v-merge-in-git/ "Rebases are how changes should pass from the top of hierarchy downwards and merges are how they flow back upwards." Is that what you were alluding to? robin ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] OT - git rebase - was [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On 01/28/2011 04:37 PM, torbenh wrote: > you really need to keep your history clean. > take a bit of time. use git rebase -i > before you push stuff upstream. > (or at least before you merge it into the master branch) > > this makes me sad. Hi Torben, Was that meant as sarcasm (kill the git hitory) or seriously - allow upsteam to cherry-pick easily? I rarely use rebase and only on local topic branches that have never been pushed to a public repo. It changes the history and will cause problems to anyone who has pulled that branch before. Since you are a git guru, could you please elaborate? TIA, robin ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Attribution for Community Approval
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille wrote: > Oh, changing the license without the permission from all copyright-holders > is > the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless > whether > you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2 or later" > to > "gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"... > > Actually, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. When you distribute "under the terms of the GPL2 or later", that means I can accept your program under the terms of the GPL3. The terms of the GPL3 say that I can modify it and redistribute it under the GPL3. Similarly for the GPL2. Notice the language says "*or* later", not "*and* later". I get to choose which license I agree to. Otherwise, it would be pointless to even offer it under the "GPL 2 or later" because I would *have* to distribute it under the GPL3, which places further restrictions on top of the GPL2, meaning that it would effectively be under the GPL3 no matter what. Jeremy ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On January 29, 2011 01:38:58 pm you wrote: > On 29 January 2011 18:22, Raymond Martin wrote: > > On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > >> On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote: > >> > I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow > >> > licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and not in > >> > the proper spirit of FOSS. > >> > > >> > Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the > >> > other project know what you are doing, it is not their business since > >> > they have freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the > >> > fact is just childish and stupid. > >> > >> What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so > >> I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :) > > > > Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are > > not required to do anything besides adhere to the license. It is just a > > waste of time to bother going through trying to be nice when so many > > people (like you perhaps) react the wrong way. Just do what you want > > with the software and forget all that childish crap. > > > > ... > > FOSS is everywhere by people acting like me. Not every company or > > developer that uses FOSS goes out of there way to thank the originators. > > They don't have to. Yet at some point they contribute their work that > > may be built on previous work. That is the thanks. So get a clue now and > > try to think beyond your ego. > > Just because the licenses don't mention being nice, acting with little > courtesy when it comes to using the code written by others won't hurt. > Otherwise I agree with you. It won't hurt, but is not required in any way, shape, or form. And that is what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is absolutely required. That just shows ignorance of what FOSS is and that they cannot read licenses properly. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:38:58 + James Morris wrote: > Just because the licenses don't mention being nice, acting with little > courtesy when it comes to using the code written by others won't hurt. > Otherwise I agree with you. I was dismayed to see this thread and the way it developed. The comment above is exactly my thoughts too. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote: >> What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so >> I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :) > > Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are not > required to do anything besides adhere to the license. It is just a waste of > time to bother going through trying to be nice when so many people (like you > perhaps) react the wrong way. Just do what you want with the software and > forget all that childish crap. I can feel a holy war in the air :) There are perfectly justified cases when a fork a necessary. Off top of my head: - principal developer in the way of getting things done (Sodipodi > Inkscape) - principal developer starting everything from scratch, because he thinks he knows better (Protux > Traverso) - principal developer not available and not replying any mails (GQView > Geeqie) - developer/company at the helm of a project disrupting development and threatening future of this project (OpenOffice > LibreOffice) Your reasoning however is on the level of "Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can.". In other words, the multitude of things that are legal doesn't 100% overlap with multitude of things that are nice. All people learn it, easy way or hard way. (Of course, some people never learn.) > FOSS is everywhere by people acting like me. This is the most awesome bullshit I heard this week :) I owe you few minutes of good honest laughter. In all possible meanings, good and bad, FOSS is where it is, because there are few people who give against millions of people who take. When those few people who give start fragmenting their efforts because they lack social skills and patience (just like you they often have all sorts of amusing justifications for that), they often get nowhere. There are lots of projects that demand quite a lot of technical competence and can only exist and mature, if people collaborate. I've seen this recently with the whole dlRaw/jlRaw/Photivo forks story. Even smaller, less significant projects suffer from lack of collaboration. Most recently I was looking for a wiki app for Django and came across half a dozen of forks, all originating from the first app, all incomplete. Because people thought they knew better. > Not every company or developer that uses FOSS goes out of there > way to thank the originators. They don't have to. Yet at some point > they contribute their work that may be built on previous work. > That is the thanks. The "I don't owe anyone anything" attitude, right :) Well, indeed doing some awesome work on top of someone else's work is a very reasonable kind of gratitude, when you are civilized about that. > So get a clue now and try to think beyond your ego. I have one question: do you ever follow your own advices? :) Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 11:15 -0500, Raymond Martin wrote: > Stick to the license, that is all that is required of you. Yes, please do. Does it say that the GPL lifts the copyright? No it does not! It is in fact copyright law that makes copyleft tick in the first place. You want to fork a project because it is a pig? Do so! but remember that no matter how much lipstick you smear on it, it is still a ... Well, what i mean is that the origin does not change and therefore you give proper credit to all of the developers. To remember: If copyrights were not explicitly and in writing signed over to you then they were not. /j ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On 29 January 2011 18:22, Raymond Martin wrote: > On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: >> On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote: >> > I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow >> > licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and not in >> > the proper spirit of FOSS. >> > >> > Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the >> > other project know what you are doing, it is not their business since >> > they have freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the >> > fact is just childish and stupid. >> >> What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so >> I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :) > > Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are not > required to do anything besides adhere to the license. It is just a waste of > time to bother going through trying to be nice when so many people (like you > perhaps) react the wrong way. Just do what you want with the software and > forget all that childish crap. > > >> This battle has a long history. It's called "what can I get away >> with?" :) Trust me: there's little to be proud of there. Talking about >> spirit of FOSS and then neglecting socially correct behaviour is >> really bs. Because FOSS would be nowhere if everybody acted like you. >> > > There is no socially correct behavior in FOSS aside from adhering to the > license. You, along with others, are just imagining there is. > > FOSS is everywhere by people acting like me. Not every company or developer > that uses FOSS goes out of there way to thank the originators. They don't have > to. Yet at some point they contribute their work that may be built on previous > work. That is the thanks. So get a clue now and try to think beyond your ego. Just because the licenses don't mention being nice, acting with little courtesy when it comes to using the code written by others won't hurt. Otherwise I agree with you. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote: > > I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow > > licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and not in > > the proper spirit of FOSS. > > > > Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the > > other project know what you are doing, it is not their business since > > they have freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the > > fact is just childish and stupid. > > What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so > I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :) Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are not required to do anything besides adhere to the license. It is just a waste of time to bother going through trying to be nice when so many people (like you perhaps) react the wrong way. Just do what you want with the software and forget all that childish crap. > This battle has a long history. It's called "what can I get away > with?" :) Trust me: there's little to be proud of there. Talking about > spirit of FOSS and then neglecting socially correct behaviour is > really bs. Because FOSS would be nowhere if everybody acted like you. > There is no socially correct behavior in FOSS aside from adhering to the license. You, along with others, are just imagining there is. FOSS is everywhere by people acting like me. Not every company or developer that uses FOSS goes out of there way to thank the originators. They don't have to. Yet at some point they contribute their work that may be built on previous work. That is the thanks. So get a clue now and try to think beyond your ego. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Attribution for Community Approval
On Saturday 29 January 2011 05:40:52 Geoff Beasley wrote: > On 01/29/2011 12:51 PM, Tim E. Real wrote: > > As a courtesy, we'll also add a reference to muse in > > > the already maintained copyright section in each file. > Alex, you still don't seem to get the point - none of these requests are > a generous or "courteous" addition on your part - it's a licence > requirement. The VAST majority of what you have supplied here as your > "product" simply isn't. Removing names from copyright notices _will_ get you in court regardless whether its free software or not. Its a breach of the license, nothing less. And breaching the license revokes your right to do anything with the software, you would not be allowed to sell it, change it, compile it, use it, look at it, nor have it on your hard-drive. I am not a lawyer (thankfully), only a software-programmer and future business-boss but removing names from copyright-notices at anytime in the repository (and adding them back in) is basically a no-go and will open you up for a big shoot out. And you will loose... Oh, changing the license without the permission from all copyright-holders is the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless whether you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"... Have fun, Arnold signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote: > I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow licenses, > only to have those projects act very territorial and not in the proper > spirit of FOSS. > > Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the other > project know what you are doing, it is not their business since they have > freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the fact is just > childish and stupid. What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :) This battle has a long history. It's called "what can I get away with?" :) Trust me: there's little to be proud of there. Talking about spirit of FOSS and then neglecting socially correct behaviour is really bs. Because FOSS would be nowhere if everybody acted like you. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On January 29, 2011 10:17:36 am Jens M Andreasen wrote: > On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote: > > What if I "fork" a project because I think it gives me a good > > starting point > > or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to > > take things will > > result in a completely different sort of program to the one I > > forked? > > a) We do not know neither your direction nor intend. > b) Is the program really completely different - according to who? > c) Because of a and b there is no c. > > /j > > > Would another term be useful? Never mind any of the hand waving going on about forks, giving credit, etc. Stick to the license, that is all that is required of you. There is a saying "never explain, your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway". If you want to fork, just fork. It is your irrevocable right to do so. You do not owe anyone an explanation, ever. Just stick to the letter of the licenses. Nothing more is required of you. Everything else said about this topic is just noise by people who do not understand the purpose of FOSS. They think they do, but they are completely wrong if they have anything to say that imputes some kind of emotionality into it. Once you give away your code under FOSS it does not belong to you anymore (in that particular form) and you do so (if you are intelligent) with full knowledge of what you are doing and all the implications of it. Basically, take responsibility, read the licenses properly, understand their far reaching purpose, and relinquish any kind of ownership type attitudes for the greater good. I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and not in the proper spirit of FOSS. Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the other project know what you are doing, it is not their business since they have freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the fact is just childish and stupid. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote: > > What if I "fork" a project because I think it gives me a good > starting point > or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to > take things will > result in a completely different sort of program to the one I > forked? a) We do not know neither your direction nor intend. b) Is the program really completely different - according to who? c) Because of a and b there is no c. /j > Would another term be useful? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
