Re: [LAD] students and copyright
On Sunday 02 August 2009 07:56:41 Arnout Engelen wrote: On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:31:41PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: ... To distribute the code, you must either get the copyright on the work back, or get permission from the actual copyright holder (employer, institution) to do so. Right. The thing is I already have this (GPL) code that was distributed for the program's earlier version with all these other people's names in the copyright part. Then with the next version their names are all gone. The GPL indicates that all copyrights must remain intact. Unless those people transferred their copyrights, in a bilateral agreement of some sort, then something seems to be incorrect. Maybe those people did sign some kind of document, enter into some type of agreement that does hand over the copyrights. I do not know, but it would be helpful to have some evidence of this, sample of document indicating the case, or hear from a few of the people involved that are named in the copyrights. The point of this would be to future-proof the code against violations by settling these issues sooner than later. At present the documentation included with the program does not specify anything about the situation relating listed authors to copyrights. I think you can understand how it might seem that something is amiss given different sets of source files for different versions with altogether different copyrights then. A little more details showing what the actual case is can prevent the issue from arising again in the future. Possibly provide some explanation in a readme file or help that is distributed with the application. Just note that since the older source code has already been distributed, with those other copyrights in place, it can continue to be distributed with them intact and be modified and distributed in accord with the GPL, as long as everything is legitimate. Some more substance to the clarification on this point would be significantly more helpful. Not only to users/developers, but to the original project to ensure it can avoid future issues and questions surrounding points like this. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] students and copyright
On Sunday 02 August 2009 08:25:19 Dave Phillips wrote: Greetings, Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ? I have copyrighted work out there. These are mostly FOSS. GPL stuff, mostly, but also LGPL, BSD, EPL, and OPL for some documentation. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi wrote: On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard wrote: The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were to distribute it. No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL violation on Prof. Keller's part. Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no license file in it. I checked the dist/zip targets. so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion. But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating and not Keller. This was not the point though. Just pointing out that a user/developer could inadvertently start distributing packages that do violate. As far as I am concerned, a little bit more diligence should be directed to these kinds of issues before distribution takes place. In the Impro-Visor 4 source package I distribute (on Improvisor at SF) I have fixed this so that it won't happen. On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I have the 2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have copyrights indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39 headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his educational institution. What is the situation with that? Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the institution or this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights indicated. Some clarification would be helpful. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 02:53:35 Arnout Engelen wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:38:18PM -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote: Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. That is the viral nature of GPL. (...) The code is automatically GPL by way of use of other GPL code. This is actually entirely wrong. 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. For someone constantly (and rudely) insisting others should 'listen', 'stick with the facts', 'read', 'learn' etc., it'd be nice if you returned the favour. Get of the high horse of moral superiority here. You are wrong, so this statement is really ridiculous after the fact. You cannot claim someone failed to distribute software under the GPL, and at the same time take said software and excercise the rights that *would* have been granted to you *if* the software was distributed under the GPL. 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 ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, lase...@gmail.com wrote: Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. This is not true. It may simply make it code that was distributed in violation of the GPL. 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 ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 08:30:00 Thorsten Wilms wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 08:08 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote: you wrote? I can't understand how you could ever look into a mirror with good conscience while having your mail user agent configured in such a way as to use a you instead of a name. This makes you a liar with each message to a mailing list! This is an OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATION of the most basic logic and also manners! STOP VIOLATING this mailing list. BTW, for the rest your are just wrong and Chris is right. You really need to wake up and start to think! What a ridiculous bunch of hogwash. There are no rules in place for what you say, get off the emotion bandwagon. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [snip]
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 11:11:46 Ralf Mardorf wrote: Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: Okay, a last not to the list, to avoid that somebody else tries to ad fuel to the fire. Everybody can see by the header of the mail what mail client somebody is using ;). For Thunderbird there's the Match all of the following option, so if somebody like to receive mails from Raymond and because of some subjects by everyone, but not from Raymond by explicit subjects, filtering seems not to be to difficult. Am I wrong? Yes, it is easy to do. Anyone getting mail from the list can filter as they please. Should it become a sport to provoke Raymond? You can try. It might work depending on the situation. For now, I am actually doing some work on getting the Impro-Visor 4 stuff on my project, amongst other things. Still finding GPL violations in the Impro-Visor source as given on SF, so I have to fix things up so as not to propagate those problems onto others. Things are missing that should be there to actually make certain installation packages. At the moment I can't see any additional mail by Raymond, but I receive redundant mails to infalme something that long ago is dead. It's a mirror on themselves. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 05:08:49 Grammostola Rosea wrote: Robert Keller wrote: Dear linux-audio developers, I have created New Project https://sourceforge.net/projects/impro- visor/ Thanks for Impro-Visor, which is its correct name. 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. Ok, I see there is a svn version: |svn co https://impro-visor.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/impro-visor impro-visor | I don't see copyright and license files yet though. I think it's wise to add them. GPL violations on SF right away. Good work Keller. Is there already a binary, because I can't find build/install options. Would be nice if we could also download the binary from sourceforge, without having to subscribe to the yahoo group. 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 ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:01:36 alex stone wrote: Just on a more serious note, amidst all this mayhem and frivolity, we forked a project recently to more specifically add and modify a set of tools for a defined purpose. Unlike this trainwreck, we not only tried our best to do so in a decent way, but the original author was thoroughly civilised about it, and showed a lot of class in his positive and encouraging responses. I certainly learned a lot from the process, and have even more respect for Chris (Cannam) as a result. It goes without saying that if Chris can use anything we write, then he's most welcome to do so, and has our encouragement as well. There's a way to do this that doesn't involve throwing digital hatchets or burning anyone at the stake. Yes, but that could not be done in this case. Seemingly, people have not been paying attention. The nice approach was tried almost a year ago now. The same obnoxious attitude persists now with the original Impro-Visor side of things, so action had to be taken. When doing the right thing causes people to almost line up against the one in the right, what does that say about those people? Some have not. My thanks go to them, for actually having properly read the GPL and understanding the obligations involved. For others, I believe they are all having some kind of residual effect left over from childhood when parents and adults told them to never quarrel or fight. As if all such attitudes can only lead to bad outcomes. The fact is that civilized societies are built on argument, debate. That is how laws are put into place to make life better. People must argue to make improvements, else we will all be at the mercy of a few with all the power deciding unfairly what is right or wrong for all of us. As opposed to having a democratic process in place that is not supposed to discriminate without proper cause. Try to get past this idea that all arguments are bad, they aren't. They lead to results you won't get if you just sit around on your hands. Such is what happened in this case. If I had interacted with someone like Chris, that would have been great, then things would certainly have worked out better. But that is not the case. I work on other FOSS projects, and aside from one other projects, I have never had any problems like this. The other people I interact with are willing to discuss things, clearly, openly, logically, and without resorting to personal attacks on my character. Disagreements do occur from time to time, but they just do not have the same self-inflated and arrogant motivation I have experience with Impro-Visor. There are lots of projects out there that pretend to be FOSS, using GPL or whatever license. Then when you try to do what you are allowed they react in a very proprietary manner. So there is a phenomena at play with this--some developers riding the free software wagon just so they can claim to be doing that, to get recognition, boost their egos, or whatever. Learn to see this people. It is very scummy behavior that deserves no less than being attacked and shamed into compliance. In fact, these are the exact tactics that various GPL legal defender organizations use. So what I have done is completely inline with them. Anybody who thinks otherwise has not done their homework. So please go do some research before putting in your comments that fall on the side of defending a violator. Never mind the warm fuzzy feelings you want, get results. Impro-Visor has made it impossible to cooperate, never mind the seemingly nice attitude pretentiously given by those on that side about the issue. Only the facts count. And the fact remains that Impro-Visor is still violating the GPL. Go check for yourself, don't take my word for it. You will know who is really right when you realize that this is a consistent pattern of behavior on their part. Don't be fooled by childish excuses that sound like someone telling their primary school teacher they forgot their homework. Responsibility first, responsibility! Raymond P.S. Bob kicked me off his Yahoo group with this new release he just made. Why would he do that? He never let me post any message previously without censoring or dumping them. So I haven't even sent any that might be questionable to him since last year because of this. He is just trying to prevent me from getting at the files he is releasing. Apparently he must be afraid of something or doing something wrong. And he is, GPL violations still exist on that group with this release. Go check for yourselves. Can you see more now the kind of person he is? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 10:39:45 you wrote: Raymond might be right or wrong. I remember some mails were people recommended Raymond to be cool, even if Bob might be wrong. I wonder why people now can't be cool, while they guess Raymond is wrong! So, even if Raymond should be wrong, why do you now blame him? Aren't you able to follow you own recommendation you gave Raymond before? You should be able to empathize Bob's emotions, if not you are just (a) liar(s)! My personal opinion is to see what will happen in the future. Bob should get a chance and it doesn't matter if he had chances before or not, at the same time I can't see any reason to blame Raymond. There's a film with Spencer Tracy, the protagonist played by Spencer Tracy said, that people should use any popular word that can be understood by everyone, because there are too less words that can be understood by everyone. Talking about a allegedly wrong chose of used words is stupid. The fact is, that Bob ignored the GPL, another fact seems to be that he's willing to consider with the GPL. Is there any reason to blame anybody now? Even if somebody should be wrong in your opinions, why can't you keep cool? Well there is still a reason to blame, at this moment. Impro-Visor is still violating the GPL and that is all there is too it. All the rest of that emotional stuff about being nice is just showing how superficial people are. They are swayed be surface issues rather than real meaning. Mr. Keller is a professor at some institution and originally developed this application, therefore superficial people side with that. They have authority issues and bend over for those they deem to be in positions of power. Poor little sheep. Linus Torvalds says some weird off the wall things, some smart, some nasty. It does not bother me at all. It does not bother these superficial people either because he is the originator of Linux, thus up on a pedestal compared to mere mortals for them. Same thing would happen to me if I originate a unique application or project and someone were making justified claims of wrong doing against me. These protests about my attitude would not even exist and they would incorrectly think I was at least a little in the right. People, you do not know your own minds. I am sure the majority of these people, as well as a large portion of the general population, are easily manipulated by narcissists. You know, those people who come along and light up a room. They smile and tell you everything you want to hear, the way you want to hear it. Then when they have you under their control and you turn your back, you get a knife in it. Pay attention and watch out for these types of people that won't give you the raw straight truth. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 12:33:19 you wrote: P.S. Bob kicked me off his Yahoo group with this new release he just made. Why would he do that? He never let me post any message previously without censoring or dumping them. So I haven't even sent any that might be questionable to him since last year because of this. He is just trying to prevent me from getting at the files he is releasing. Apparently he must be afraid of something or doing something wrong. And he is, GPL violations still exist on that group with this release. Go check for yourselves. Can you see more now the kind of person he is? I blocked you last Friday, actually, when you were sending me those flaming messages, not last night when I posted the release. I was actually getting quite disturbed about your behavior, and thought it best to detach. These are the kinds of things you are bringing on with your attitude. As owner of that group, I can do what I want with it, just as you say you can do what you want with my sources. Liar. I checked numbers of times over the weekend and it is only now after you announce this release that I am banned, not blocked. Yes, you can do what you want on your group, but I never sent any messages to your group. Liar. There is no GPL violation on that site, because the sourceforge URL for the new release is clearly given. The source for the old release is still on the site itself. Liar. Give me a break. I really can't spend my entire day answering these messages. I've tried to put my best foot forward in posting the sources as I said I would. I spent all of last evening doing it and got it to a level where it builds. Could someone other than you please tell me what I should add to be in compliance if I am not? I told you last year, but you would not listen. Now, hear you come with crocodile tears, once I have managed to motivate you to action. Oh, poor you. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote: Robert Keller wrote: 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. In Copying it's say: GPLv2 or at your option, any later version. License says GPLv3 Don't know if that's a problem... 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 ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 15:02:48 you wrote: lase...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Keller at the moment is willing to comply with the GPL, it might be a little bit late, but now he does, even if he needs still some time to do it 100% perfect. Wrong! Now he still does not. Past two replies of mine show that. I don't believe he will keep it up. He is just doing it now to quell any controversy. Then later he will return to previous behavior. Just like he did with preview release after I got him to release source for 3.39 version last year. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 15:25:51 Ralf Mardorf wrote: Grammostola Rosea wrote: Robert Keller wrote: 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. In Copying it's say: GPLv2 or at your option, any later version. License says GPLv3 Don't know if that's a problem... \r 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. Wrong. GPL is still being violated by Keller on his Yahoo group. The actual reason for kicking me off there is so that I won't be able to see what files are there and check for violations. It does not work though, because I already got back on and checked. GPL violations everywhere. And these are with the supposed new stuff he just put up, as well as old stuff. Basically, he is one big fat liar. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 19:05:57 David Robillard wrote: On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote: Basically, he is one big fat liar. 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? Hey, I do not care what you think. Resorting to insults because you perceive insults really makes you so above me. I was not really having any emotional outburst when I wrote that. To me it was an expression of truth. The guy is fat and a liar. 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? Then you are very superficial and easily influenced by authority rather than truth. It means you are a mental midget. No really intelligent person would take sides with someone merely because they spoke nice. You are doing more harm than good. Please stop making the rest of us look bad. I am not associated with you. If you look bad, get a makeover. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 18:58:40 Grammostola Rosea wrote: lase...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote: One of the main reasons why R. Stallman started GNU/FSF/GPL because of it's social aspect. You learn kids on schools for example to corporate and help each other, being social. I think you need to read more on Stallman and how he vehemently defends GPL code. Not by being nice, but attacking. 99% of this list is trying to help Prof Keller how to use the GPL license, how to put the project on SourceForge and how to manage such an GPL project, being social. 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. You, Raymond, act a-social: No, you are an idiot to think you have some command over me. Already explained that to you. Obviously, you do not listen either. 1) You are not coorporative Don't have to be. Still get results. 2) You yell to more then one person, say rude things and use bad language Too bad. 3) You scream about violating GPL, and not helping him not violating GPL I did help, he did not want it. He had to be shamed into doing anything. Use your brain. 4) you disturb the corporation and the work of other LAD developers And they do not act badly at all, ever. 5) You are giving GPL and FSF a bad name 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. STOP VIOLATING THE SPIRIT OF FSF/GNU and GPL, RAYMOND MARTIN! I am defending it, fool. -R ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:27:20 David Robillard wrote: On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 19:36 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 28 July 2009 19:05:57 David Robillard wrote: On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote: Basically, he is one big fat liar. 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? Hey, I do not care what you think. Resorting to insults because you perceive insults really makes you so above me. I was not really having any emotional outburst when I wrote that. To me it was an expression of truth. The guy is fat and a liar. 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? Then you are very superficial and easily influenced by authority rather than truth. It means you are a mental midget. No really intelligent person would take sides with someone merely because they spoke nice. You are doing more harm than good. Please stop making the rest of us look bad. I am not associated with you. If you look bad, get a makeover. Where two discourse, if the one's anger rise, The man who lets the contest fall is wise. This is the mistake of those here who read without thought. They see anger where there is none. It is all argument in the service of a cause. Learn not to see emotions where there aren't really that much. If we were all talking face-to-face you would see how wrong you are and how relaxed about this I am. I am even making jokes about it to people here. So cheer up people. Some of you sound so pessimistic to me. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 19:56:34 you wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:36 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote: 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. That is funny because it is very convenient how you have taken it out of context. My words are poison, yet others insulting me is okay. 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. Actually, you are wrong. For I do not care. Similar things have happened with other nasty people that take themselves too seriously, yet I am able to work on other projects with developers without problems. It is just this particular situation. You all impute way too much into what you think I am about. It is all words. I think many need to learn to lighten up, because it sure seems they are not nearly as tolerant as they believe themselves to be. 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. I have only gotten started. Wait and see. Again, it is funny how YOU take things out of context. I was referring to one person, not everybody. This is a general problem I see in the way other communicate. They assume you are talking to them, when you are not. That is a real left brain thing where people read text, but cannot understand context, a right brain thing (it happens all the time in the way people reply to emails). You also seem to be assuming feeling by others and results that are very unlikely. People forget things after a while and it is a known phenomena that these little incidents on these projects are overlooked when progress is made. You may want to read up on this sort of thing. I have seen this sort of thing first hand. Later users/developers coming along won't know anything about this stuff and will choose what looks best to them. So much for your theory of how things will turn out. And I always sleep great, thanks. I mean, do you honestly think I feel in the smallest bit bad? Not at all. I have caused a result, which is more than anyone else here has done. Why would I feel bad when I know that there are many positive things that could happen, not this bleak projection you have given based on viewing some little arguments in a bad light. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:35 you wrote: On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:36 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote: I blocked you last Friday, actually, when you were sending me those flaming messages, not last night when I posted the release. I was actually getting quite disturbed about your behavior, and thought it best to detach. These are the kinds of things you are bringing on with your attitude. As owner of that group, I can do what I want with it, just as you say you can do what you want with my sources. Liar. I checked numbers of times over the weekend and it is only now after you announce this release that I am banned, not blocked. By blocked I meant banned. There is no separate thing as blocked in the Yahoo! groups. I know full well when I did it and it was last week after I was being flamed, not last night. By calling me a liar, you are just digging a hole for yourself. Yes, you are a liar. Show me where the hole is? There is no reason to remove someone from a group for emails they send to you privately. That is why you are so very much a liar. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:40:38 you wrote: By blocked I meant banned. There is no separate thing as blocked in the Yahoo! groups. I know full well when I did it and it was last week after I was being flamed, not last night. By calling me a liar, you are just digging a hole for yourself. Bob Here is a partial screen shot from the Yahoo! management Banned members showing the date of banning, which would put it at last Saturday. I considered it Friday night because I was still up late preparing my slides for my talk Saturday morning. How does that show I am being banned? I cannot see a thing that would indicate that. It just proves I was still there on the group on Saturday! And, again, you have proved you are a liar. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:48:33 you wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:41 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... more of the usual ... ] Again, it is funny how YOU take things out of context. I was referring to one person, not everybody. The context was: 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? Then you are very superficial and easily influenced by authority rather than truth. It means you are a mental midget. No really intelligent person would take sides with someone merely because they spoke nice. 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? So you agree that you took it out of context. That I never applied it to everybody on the list. That you were wrong. Just like some of the other things you wrote were wrong. So what is your point in responding, to evade the issue? better to keep one's mouth shut and be taken for a fool than to open it and prove the case beyond all doubt. This seems to be what you have done by responding to my previous message yet not showing where I was wrong!? Think before writing. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:28:05 you wrote: On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:44 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote: Robert Keller wrote: 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. In Copying it's say: GPLv2 or at your option, any later version. License says GPLv3 Don't know if that's a problem... 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 I changed LICENSE.txt to Version 2 over 5 hours ago. I'm not sure what you are complaining about. 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 ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 21:51:12 you wrote: Yes, you are a liar. Show me where the hole is? There is no reason to remove someone from a group for emails they send to you privately. That is why you are so very much a liar. Raymond I am a liar because I banned you from my group? You are liar because you made it sound like I was sending flames to the group. When in fact they were private messages. A totally separate thing with nothing to do with the group. For which there should be no associated action, unless you are trying to be vindictive. Anyway, I already explained this, but obviously you are trying to wiggle out of things because you cannot face the truth of your bad actions. I refuse to continue this ridiculous exchange. I am going to be ignoring your emails from now on. I thought you were going to do that last week when we exchanged messages. I finally had to ask you why you were continuing when you wanted to stop. Then you stopped. Logic is not your strength, I think. I am pretty sure most of the others are tired of hearing from you as well. But it is clear that you are never going to stop. Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how transparent this situation is. Sure. I am right and you keep violating the GPL all over the place until I bring it up again. I have taken down all of the version 3.39 from my Yahoo! group, so there can't be any further accusation of violation regarding that. These are the same files that you took and posted on your sourceForge for distribution. So if there was any violation there, there is one on your site as well. Simply adding a GPL text file doesn't change that. Anyone that cares to take a look can see what you have done. But I doubt that anyone cares. All that was missing was the license file, I added it in. That was all that is needed to bring it into compliance. Thus, I have no violations, as far as I know. It was very easy to do. If there are any violations that came from your bad actions, then if you read the GPL I cannot be liable for them. Read the GPL. Did you you check the version 4 files also? I checked earlier today and YOU WERE STILL VIOLATING THE GPL!!! Also the thumbs up review message you posted on your site says this: This projects hosts the Impro-Visor application and code. That is a misrepresentation. You already said your project was named improvisor, not Impro-Visor, the name of my project for four years. There is no rule against me posting that. I am hosting the original Impro-Visor on the project. What part do you not understand? I mean, I am doing exactly what I am allowed to do, host distribution of a GPL program. Do you not understand that this is what SF is for? In summary, I have tried my best to comply with all the GPL items. Each time you try to come up with something else that I am supposed to do. But I think you have run out now. If you have anything further, report it to the FSF. Again, you show your ignorance. The FSF is not going to do anything about it. It is not their concern. Only the copyright holders can do anything about it. The exchanges we have been having are about you doing the right thing regardless of whether those copyright holders want to take action or not. What part of all this did you not understand? Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 you wrote: That woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL. Wrong. Because Bob violated the GPL, right? By not putting a licence file or giving the source. You put a license and provide the source. No more violation. Remember? I'm pretty sure I'm telling you something you already knew here, but he DIDN'T release the source code for the preview release. He SHOULD have but he DIDN'T, so you never got the GPL'd source with the preview mods in it. This put him in violation of jMusic's license but it did NOT magically grant you copyright, copyleft or copyanything to the code he should have released, but didn't. 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. Well sorry but Bob's violation of the jMusic authors' copyright ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT entitle you to commit such a violation of Bob's own copyright: Until and unless you have Bob's preview source files with GPL headers all present and correct, you don't have a license for the mods in that code. Wrong. Bob's copyright is a copyleft, fool. Show any proof that there is something against decompiling GPL code. You cannot find any. This isn't about decompiling GPL code. Its about decompiling a binary that was released, without source, in violation of the GPL. (Please tell me you remember that Bob was VIOLATING the GPL? Please?). He SHOULD have licensed his modifications under the GPL but he DIDN'T (remember?) which means you don't have a license for the modifications. 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 ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard wrote: On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0700, Robert Keller wrote: Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how transparent this situation is. Out of curiosity I checked. Assuming the entire source code of the project is contained in what you get with: svn co https://impro-visor.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/impro-visor at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer non-authoritative opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF. The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were to distribute it. The only thing even worth mentioning is that you may want to explicitly specify the license of the data files iff you want them to be something other than the GPLv2+. This is just a matter of taste (some prefer a more liberal license for input files), and not a compliance problem. In summary: As far as I can tell, the sky is not falling, and your LAD karma is roughly +78000 LOC. Chicken Little, whose LAD karma seems to be 0 at best, may safely and wisely be ignored. Except for the big minus 100 for still violating the GPL on the Yahoo group. You missed that part. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 11:12:05 Robert Keller wrote: Ralf, I think you have a misimpression, created by laseray (aka biophotoray aka Raymond Martin), who apparently is trying to steal control of my project, known as Impro-Visor. Calling what I am doing stealing is defamation of character. I think Bob better watch what he says. Hardly what you would expect from someone who thinks he is in such an irreproachable position. I do want to cooperate, and will be looking into what I can do to repair the damage he is causing. However, I need a little time, because I just got back from Europe and this is not my only obligation today. I can't move on the immediate demands of others, as this person seems to think. Good luck with that. In my experience, there is little if anything a person can do about someone legitimately forking a GPL project against their approval. Using the GPL for a project is to give others approval to fork it, at will. Thus he shows a lack of knowledge about what he has gotten himself into in the first place by using the GPL. It would not be wise to contribute to his fork meanwhile, because there is a much more recent version that has not been released yet, including bug fixes to the preview version which was posted briefly as an executable (the only thing that is behind his asserted 'violation'). I have heard this before. All subterfuge to prevent competition. Did I mention that I have already forked other GPL projects before and tried all kinds of things to stop it. None of them worked because I was completely within my legal rights to do it. For reference, I include below a message from Raymond which exposes his intent. Whether or not there was a violation on my part, it is no excuse for his sort of malicious behavior. He includes private messages intended for him only, that shows real character. There is nothing wrong with what I wrote in that message anyway. Perhaps others will not like the tone, makes no difference though. I think you can all see now the kind of person Bob is now by this post, exactly what I have been trying to tell everyone all along. As I am not formerly a member of the linux-audio-dev community, I just now joined as a result of this. I must appeal to the reasonable members to understand and help me. Why should they help? Nothing wrong has been done. This is highly laughable. I think he should go to the FSF and cry, they will laugh also. I invite Bob to get a lawyer and try to sue me for doing what he has allowed me to do by way of the GPL. It is contradictory to attack others for what you have given them permission to do. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Background on the Impro-Visor project
On Monday 27 July 2009 13:10:50 Ralf Mardorf wrote: I have contacted sourceForge about his posting of sources relating to the project, and they suggested filing a copyright infringement (the project is copyright by me and Harvey Mudd College). You don't want that Raymond does forge his own version of Impro-Visor? Why not? I can't see any damage by doing this. Of course, because there is no damage. In fact, my fork will help popularize the application. That guy does not understand that though. There is no such thing as negative publicity, ever heard that expression? The only reason people like that do not want forks is that they cannot bear the thought that someone might take their idea and improve upon it in ways that they could not. It is all power-tripping to maintain control of something that you have already released into the wild by virtue of using the GPL. When you use the GPL you essentially are letting go of control. People should read more before they use certain licenses. If that is not what they want, then do something else. It is ultimately the responsibility of each person to understand the license conditions and obligations upfront. Anything less is just incompetence. Complaining about actions that are completely legitimate and ethically correct is a one way ticket to looking like a fool. a lot of the thinking that went into the project is that of me and my students. And also by some GPL coders. You won't share your knowledge? Exactly. Selfishness. Keep control. Be top dog. All ideas that do not sit well with those of us that believe in the philosophy of free software. Free software is about meritocracy. You do good things, share those things, welcome others to contribute, discuss differences of opinion (when people are reasonable, this is not of one of those cases), and so on. Raymond P.S. The Improvisor project still exists on SF along with the files. Check: http://sf.net/projects/improvisor I wonder why that is. I know, because there is nothing wrong being done. Unlike the packages on the Impro-Visor Yahoo group, mine actually have the GPL license. Thus, Impro-Visor continues to violate the GPL even with the old version up. Check for yourself and see how incredulous that guy is. Plus, he also lies about any copyright infringement. There aren't any infringements with the packages I put up, they are exactly the same as the ones on the Yahoo group, aside from actually being in compliance with the GPL or the file names. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Background on the Impro-Visor project
On Monday 27 July 2009 14:19:30 Thorsten Wilms wrote: 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. No, It is deliberate AFAIK. 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. No, it is always condescending. Anybody can go to SF and download. It is not brain surgery. 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 ;) Too bad. I have an attitude because I am not going to let people push me around and insult me for being right. If you cannot comprehend that from all the posts then perhaps you should keep your ideas to yourself. You haven't had to deal with this person. 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. Again, too bad. Get over it. There is a time for nice and that past a while back. I tried nice and I also explained this previously. Clue in to the situation please. Where do all these people come from that assume style equals substance? What you are really perceiving is backbone. Maybe you are not familiar with that. 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? You, nothing. But then again you are not really involved. So... 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. I see 100% chance that you do not know what you are talking about because you are not closely involved. You should check all the posts more carefully. Don't worry you will not be the first person who does not see this clearly. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 14:33:30 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: hi bob! which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking your project any way he sees fit. so much for the legal part. as to communication skills, raymond, i think you should go get a nice cup of coffee, tone down a bit, see what happens. this bears all the hallmarks of a excuse my french pissing contest, which might be explained by the history of your mutual correspondence, but from the outside, it looks like no big deal at all, and should sort itself out nicely. I can agree with almost everything else written in this post, but get off the attitude train people. It is not necessary to be nice all the time. There are well established reason for the attitude. When others start behaving better they will get treated more nicely (like not defaming others). And you are right. this is really not that big of a deal. Others are blowing it out of proportion to reality. Nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical is happening by the existence of a fork. In fact, a fork does not exist yet, only the same packages as on the Yahoo group, minus the GPL violations. It would have been very easy to do the right thing from the start. But that is the responsibility of others. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
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
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:02:47 Chris Cannam wrote: 2009/7/27 Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de: which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking your project any way he sees fit. It isn't necessarily the case that he is entitled to fork it. Raymond has repeatedly said that it was distributed to him without a GPL license. If a program is distributed to you under some proprietary terms, but it uses some GPL code, then it is presumably violating the terms of the GPL and so should not have been distributed. Possible remedies depending on the circumstances might include GPL'ing the program or ceasing distribution. But these are remedies between that program's distributors and the authors of the GPL'd code; the recipients of the improperly licensed program can't make any such remedy themselves. You can't just decide unilaterally that the ostensibly proprietary code was improperly licensed and so go and copy it to all your friends. In this case, the situation is probably moot since Bob has said he intended to publish under the GPL from the outset, but I think that is the only thing that might make this action defensible. It is moot. I previously gave proof of the GPL header in one of the Java files of one of the packages up on my project. So there was never any question of whether this was GPL or proprietary. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:33:48 Fons Adriaensen wrote: While I'd normally respect the private nature of any message, this one goes well above any reasonable limit so I do feel free to quote it: See this is exactly the kind of person that is like keller. Disrespects privacy, sides with the wrong. Definitely deserves a good insult. Thus, proving my point that they should shut their mouth when they know nothing. I am really starting think that a number of people that are responding on this thread are not really getting it. They seem to side with the bad person, rather than the correct one. What is wrong with people? I know, easily manipulated by nice words but unwilling to examine the content of anything that does not fit that. Weak-minded. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:45:37 Jens M Andreasen wrote: Metallica gone GPL? :-D More like jazz fusion. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 18:57:50 Nick Copeland wrote: Man, This discussion is too good not to stick an oar in. As far as Fons goes, the forwarded mail is simply stoking the flames. I have a few email from him, privately, that are extremely derogatory of anybody on this list with artistic instincts and he might also consider keeping his private messages as such. Fons had just got back from yet another pizza party, he says, so perhaps he had another bottle too many and his fingers ran away with him (before he flames me, I am also guilty of this at the very minute although I went for a curry and it was definitely hotter than parma). Fons has a tendency to talk a lot of drivel, then at times be unbelievably lucid although I am not convinced this mail fell into the latter. His message tends to be more succinct in those cases. Ah, that is too damn funny. Anyway, enough of hassling Fons, he contributes too immensely to Linux Audio to heckled more than he is due. The message I did want to give, before I got sidetracked by what could have been a reasonable message to him (and I am pleased he forwarded it since it was firstly quite funny and secondly embodied a number of things I have wanted to say to him in the past but lacked that same clarity of expression), was that either you do make software freely available or you don't. If you can't let go of what you have created and let it go its own course then it was a mistake to put it out there to start with. If you really want to consider the legal alternatives then please just release your code on MacOS, then release it on Windows and finally sue yourself. That would be fun and it would at least leave the rest of us to get on with what we are doing. LMAO. Either embrace the concept or don't get involved. Open source, publicly released code is just that. You put it out in the public. You let the cat out of the bag. There is no point in going bawling to some non existent legal 'daddy' to change that fact. Either do release or don't release it but please, don't look for sympathy from the open source community for the pain inflicted by somebody else picking up what you have done and improving/butchering/charging for the same. Unix is littered with failed lawsuits. The code is out there. A man after my own heart. FYI, still have not got any emails from SF, the project is still there, the files are still there. Not surprisingly. Apparently, Mr. Keller did not believe me when I said I had been through this before. Don't worry Bob, there are lots of disingenuous folks out there pretending to be all FOSS and using the GPL. That's why there are special legal groups and organizations to protect exactly what I am doing. Look some of those up and check with them. I'm sure they will get a laugh out of your protests too. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF
On Sunday 26 July 2009 03:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote: On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 01:20 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: Hi, ... The main point I remembered from the last thread with Impro-Visor in the title: It uses gpl software itself. Which means that it has to publish the modifications of that part at least. True, if they have done any modifications to that external part. If it's only using it (jmusic?) as a library, the license of the library shouldn't affect the main software. But this has always been a hot topic with GPL: how to link dynamic / static and how does linking affect the license of the linkee. Whether you use another GPL library as code, directly compiled in, or linked to externally makes no difference under the GPL. This is just another case of where people have not gone to the FSF and read the FAQ page on GPL. And as the software is GPL licensed, the source _has_ to be made available at least on request by ways equally convinient as the binaries (afaik this ruling in the gpl-text wants to prevent that requests for the source-code have to be written on 200$ notes or that the 1million lines of code are sent via fax or snail-mail). There is no statement about GPL on the Impro-visor site nor could I find such a statement in the archive.org copies of previous pages. This is true. Not a violation in itself, but it does obscure the situation. Most projects that use GPL usually make it well-known. You don't have to, but given the previous actions of these folks it does not exactly look like they are trying to be above board on the matter. Wikipedia states it's GPL as does http://www.softsynth.com/links/java_music.html but .. has the copyright holder(s) ever declared it as GPL? It does not make any difference whether the copyright holder of Impro-Visor declares it as GPL or not. Once you use GPL code in your application it too must be GPL. That is the viral nature of GPL. Again, FSF and the FAQ on GPL. Read it. Furthermore, as I said in my previous post: the copyright holders are free to stop using GPL. You may fork if you receive GPL licensed source from the authors or from a previous licensee (someone who made a copy while it was under GPL with the licenses intact etc.). You however may not fork it based on a disassembled code not released under GPL. Sure, but again not relevant to the current situation. Can we stick to the topic, please. Maybe I've missed something crucial in this discussion, so I'll ask the stupid question (directed towards Raymond): Was the impro-visor version 3.99 released under GPL? .. or Are you assuming the whole of Impro-visor is subject to GPL as it has violated the GPL of jmusic? Both. A few days ago I put up a GPL header direct from one of the java files in Impro-Visor to make it clear that I was certain they were violating the GPL. Impro-Visor compiles in the jMusic code, which makes it even more evident that there is a violation. And the header clearly mentions using jMusic. So there is no mystery in whether this under GPL or that violations have occurred. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF
On Sunday 26 July 2009 10:04:27 you wrote: lase...@gmail.com wrote: I wanted to cooperate with people, but it was just too difficult for them to admit being wrong. Hardened fronts needs to calm down and then to find a way out the tight corner. Everybody needs a chance, otherwise he might do everything without publishing anything and one day there will be a program nobody really can prove used FLOSS code. More than a year of chances are more than enough. You cannot continually give people chances forever when it is obvious they just don't want to do the right thing. It may not matter if that guy changes things (e.g., license) once there is a fork. It is not as if other people cannot write code you know. The currently available source code is starter material for that. I wish people would think over what has already been written about this topic before they respond. People should not remain ever patient with those who act improperly. At some point you just have to act, not wait on the side until someone else gives you the okay. Imagine how much in this world would not get done if we all waited for others to smarten up. You give people a chance, then when they don't come through just get to it. That is what has happened here. Tune into that facts, please. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF
On Sunday 26 July 2009 10:52:43 you wrote: ... By moral you are right, but by some laws you might only attain one's ends by diplomacy. Dunno. And I'm not diplomatic too. Sure. You do not have to be diplomatic about everything. You have to be right about what you are trying to accomplish. So I am really sick to death of people that think you have to be all nice, all the time. That is just noise. There is a time for nice, but then you need to get something done also. I'll stick with the pragmatic side of things and get something done. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF
On Sunday 26 July 2009 15:53:30 nescivi wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 09:31:10 lase...@gmail.com wrote: Impro-Visor compiles in the jMusic code, which makes it even more evident that there is a violation. And the header clearly mentions using jMusic. So there is no mystery in whether this under GPL or that violations have occurred. Unless the authors of jMusic gave them permission to use it in a non-GPL context. Did they react at all on your emails about this issue? I tried last year to contact them and just recently. No response either time, but now the binaries were taken down so no real point. I will try again soon. I am also going look more into jMusic while working on this program. There may be improvements I can contribute. So maybe I will have some communication then. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF
On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:09:26 you wrote: While you have every right to fork the code, one quibble I have (most likely just with your wording) is where you say that they are obligated to provide the binary. They have no such obligation whatsoever. If they provide a binary they are obligated to provide source, but they are free to offer neither without violating the GPL. Okay, it was just a quick wording, so don't misconstrue my meaning. The binaries were out, under GPL, source has to be available then in accord with the license. That is what this is about. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF
On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:53:01 Grammostola Rosea wrote: ... The guy removed the preview version from his website. You don't have to release the source of development versions. Yes you do. This has been explained previously. I asked this on #gnu , they told me, it is not necessary I do not know where these people get there info but it cannot be the GPL. Thus you have more people that cannot read the GPL properly. Go to the FSF and read the FAQ, not #gnu. Read the GPL. There is no language in the GPL that EVER indicates some difference between a release/stable (or whatever) and a development version. Show it to me. You cannot find any language like that because all FOSS under GPL can be consider in a constant state of development! You don't have to make your source available, but people who gets your binaries should be able to get the source too. Yes you do. Depends on how you use the license. This also was established previously. Same #gnu Similar to above. Mmhh I'd rather saw a better corporation here. I don't know who is non-coorporative here though, Raymond or Bob Keller. Bob. Do not equate packaging with contents. This seems to be the practical misunderstanding you are having. Maybe it would be good to invite Bob Keller for a reasonable dialogue on this list. I like to hear his opinion about corporation. After such a public discussion we can decide whether there are good reasons to bundle forces on _his_ project or to fork it. my 2 cents, There you go again giving that guy the benefit of the doubt, even after he had a number of chances to act reasonably. In my last email to him I suggested we discuss this matter on his Yahoo group with others (court of public opinion), but I know he will never do that (which I directly mentioned to him). He will never allow free discussion of this point so that people can come to a consensus. As I already stated, a few people sided with him initially and then reversed their positions once they actually had the facts. Despite this he does not seem to be able to reason the whole thing out to its logical conclusion. In any event, I already have a project now and can do what I like in accord with the GPL. So there is no we to really decide anything. I already made the decision and will move forward. Others are free to do as they wish, also in accord with the GPL. If you want to participate on my project, fine. I will hook you up. If you want to make your own, also fine. Fork my stuff, when I put it up, I encourage it. Forks don't hurt a project they help to create that FOSS eco-system we are all happy to use. More versions will encourage better development. Do as you will and I will even help you out if you want to fork within my project, have separate branches of development, etc. We will see how it goes. For myself I wait to see how Bob acts in the coming time. I'm happy though that more people seems to have interest in this project. Suit yourself. More interest can lead to improvements and that is what counts for the end user. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF
On Saturday 25 July 2009 18:14:45 you wrote: On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 16:23 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:53:01 Grammostola Rosea wrote: ... The guy removed the preview version from his website. You don't have to release the source of development versions. Yes you do. This has been explained previously. I asked this on #gnu , they told me, it is not necessary I do not know where these people get there info but it cannot be the GPL. Thus you have more people that cannot read the GPL properly. Go to the FSF and read the FAQ, not #gnu. Read the GPL. GPL is a license the copyright holder may or may not use to distribute his work. Having done a release under GPL, however, does not further encumber the copyright holder: he may decide to never release any new development under GPL or choose, as many people choose, to release only stable releases. ... This is all very moot. This is a very specific case. Just trying to deal with the practical considerations of this situation right now, not other variations on how things might unfold. If something changes in the future with distribution or the license it will get dealt with and reassessed then. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] Impro-visor source code and fork
Hi all, If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the latest Impro-visor version, which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to the terms of the GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know and I will send it. I'm sure it won't compile immediately, since there are a number of incorrect constructs returned by the decompilation. I will work on this in the next while to have it compile. I think someone else mentioned they posted the older binary/source somewhere. Perhaps this can be hosted at the same location (have to look back to see where that is/who posted). Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next few days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the GPL violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not been posted along with the binaries as is legally required. I also contacted the department head at the institution responsible for this work to see if they would look into the matter. Perhaps they can sort this out in the next little while. Failing that, I will probably start a new project on SourceForge and be looking to put together a development team. Contributions to the software by users will also be welcome. There will be a need for new leadsheets, transcriptions, documentation, and even translations of the user interface. Cheer, Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-visor source code and fork
On Sunday 19 July 2009 11:12:33 Dave Phillips wrote: Gene Heskett wrote: On Sunday 19 July 2009, lase...@gmail.com wrote: If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the latest Impro-visor version, which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to the terms of the GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know and I will send it. Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next few days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the GPL violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not been posted along with the binaries as is legally required Turn this violation over to the kind folks at the FSF. They have a legal team to pursue such, and have AFAIK, a 100% batting record. Letters from attorneys will generally get their institutional attention. Maybe. I submitted details re: the LinuxSampler license to the FSF and never heard a thing from them. Submitting a violation to FSF will probably only work if the copyright on the source code that is being infringed is owned by the FSF. This is something they encourage developers of FOSS to do so that they can fully pursue these cases. Otherwise, it is up to the original copyright holder to pursue action (in this case that would be the jMusic people). The jMusic people can pursue this, if they want, but what be understood is that the GPL is a license guaranteeing rights to users (who might be developers) to have the source code. This right is being violated currently. For the OP's edification I submit this text from the GPL2 : *3.* You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: *a)* Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, *b)* Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, *c)* Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) There is no legal requirement for the producer to post the source code along with the binary. The legal requirement is that he makes it available under conditions spelled out in the license. Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code in section A means to post the source code along with the binary. Unless you go by section B, but this distribution does not include such an offer. Section C does not apply in this situation. I have had to deal with GPL license issues with another project, which I ended up forking. So I had to really read the GPL properly. And what I have indicated is exactly correct. To paraphrase the GPL, the source code must be available along with the binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer (valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee. The binaries are distributed online, therefore I assume the source code must also be available online, in the same location or possibly elsewhere, but still accessible online. If the binary was on a CD/DVD, then the source has to be on it or in some similar form accompanying it (on another CD/DVD included), or a written offer must on the disk. There is no written offer with this distribution, so my assumption is reasonable and in accord with the license. -R ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-visor source code and fork
On Sunday 19 July 2009 13:24:25 you wrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM, lase...@gmail.com wrote: To paraphrase the GPL, the source code must be available along with the binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer (valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee. No, this *may not* not the case here. The GPL is a license issued by the copyright holder to others that describes what they may do with the material and under what conditions. The GPL license for the material does NOT apply to the copyright holder. They may do whatever they want. The only thing that makes the terms of the GPL of potential interest here is if this application is linked with other GPL'ed code in a way that makes it a derivative work. I do not know if that is the case. This is exactly the case and reason why I brought this up in the first place. I have already stated that it uses jMusic code in other posts. That is GPL licensed software. Just open up the Impro-visor jar file and find the jm folder for yourself, as I previously stated. They even state somewhere on the web pages for Impro-visor that they use jMusic in it! Talk about caught with your hand in the cookie jar. I have even contacted the jMusic people to make sure they are aware of this situation. So let me make this clear. This has all been investigated more than a year ago. And the situation is exactly as I have stated, with the present violation being due to not releasing the source code along with the binaries (or making it available by an offer included in the distribution). For those who think otherwise I advise you to go to the FSF site and read the FAQ page about the GPL licenses. Many people do not properly understand or, indeed, misinterpret how the license must be applied. That page clears all that up once and for all. And that is what I am going by, in conjunction with the license text. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-visor source code and fork
This should settle any doubts people have about there being a GPL violation, along with understanding how the GPL is properly applied. Here is part of the header from a file in the previous version of Impro-Visor. No notice to any change was given with the current preview version and jMusic code is still used in it. Therefore, it be logically deduced that the GPL still applies: /** * This Java Class is part of the Impro-Visor API * * Copyright (C) 2005-2008 by Robert Keller and Harvey Mudd College * * It has been edited from the jMusic API version 1.5, March 2004. * Copyright (C) 2000 Andrew Sorensen Andrew Brown * * Impro-Visor is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * ... Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Improvisor lilypond support!?
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
