Re: [LAD] Attribution for Community Approval
On January 31, 2011 11:37:42 am drew Roberts wrote: On Saturday 29 January 2011 18:59:32 Jeremy Salwen wrote: 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 do not know why anybody would think this is even possible. The GPL is written by the Free Software Foundation. So being free is a foundational goal and the past 30 years and evolution of the licenses have shown this to be the case. Perhaps you should go and read their mission statement and about the history of all this before saying things like that. It is almost an impossible scenario since the license is clearly about keeping software free for anyone to use, develop, distribute, in accord with the license. It is logical to deduce that anything besides that would be contradictory to its intent, and possibly cancel any power of enforcement that the license carries. In fact there is no way for FSF to sign over any rights you have in the code you write. You always have the right to take your original code and put it out under a different license, free or proprietary. If anything towards what you suggested were to occur developers would just up and put their code out under different licenses. After all the work the FSF has put into these licenses I am certain they have examined many scenarios and possible outcomes of changing the license in one way or another. There is really nothing to fear in using the GPL. 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 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 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] 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 lase...@gmail.com 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] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
On January 27, 2011 11:08:30 am Paul Davis wrote: ... while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever, or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. It is not troubling at all. And completely in accord with licenses, the only real thing that matters. if you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it. And you would have no right to say anything actually as long as the license was adhered to. Any complaint that has nothing to do with licenses is just moralizing. I think we can all do without any of that noise, thank you. Nobody has to thank you for your work. They might, but it is not required. Since you choose to put it out as FOSS this is exactly what you have agreed to. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Noob Q: Pthreads the way to go?
On November 13, 2009 02:56:44 am Markus Schwarzenberg wrote: On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:15:27 + Harry Van Haaren harryhaa...@gmail.com wrote: I've googled for c++ cross-platform threading which returned this posthttp://www.codeproject.com/KB/threads/thread_class.aspx. this probably better should have returned: http://www.boost.org/doc/html/thread.html besides this, there is http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/ - also works nicely. However, it's C. Do you really need cross-platform threading for Linux audio? If you do need it, for some reason, you might consider using the Qt concurrency framework (with or without Qt GUI stuff). Regards, Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [semi-OT] midi snakes using CAT5?
On November 1, 2009 10:47:44 am Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: hi everyone! i'm playing with my shiny new BCF2K, and i'm going to use it some distance from my machine, so i'm going to try a midi link instead of USB. what is the maximum length of midi chain that you have used without problems? i read somewhere that no more than 15 meters are recommended, which strikes me as pretty short even if it's unbalanced. my idea is to abuse a cat5 cable as a triple midi loom - do you think that could work? pinout would be as follows: 15 meters is a recommendation based on typical cables used in a simple system. Data corruption ensues somewhere after 15m, depending on cable quality, EMI, and so forth. I would imagine a CAT5 as having better shielding and IIRC runs for that are advised to somewhere up to 50m. Different frequency ranges though, so signal loss/degradation per meter may vary. Usually you need a buffer/booster box for any regular MIDI cable runs greater than 15m. You can also use professional microphone cables for MIDI with DIN plugs. That might get you a little better EMI rejection and hence a longer run also. A CAT5 cable should work, as long as the pairs of signal/grounds are really twisted together. Hum and crosstalk may be a factor otherwise. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [semi-OT] midi snakes using CAT5?
On November 1, 2009 12:55:44 pm you wrote: On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 12:56 -0400, Raymond Martin wrote: 15 meters is a recommendation based on typical cables used in a simple system. Data corruption ensues somewhere after 15m, depending on cable quality, EMI, and so forth. I would imagine a CAT5 as having better shielding and IIRC runs for that are advised to somewhere up to 50m. Different frequency ranges though, so signal loss/degradation per meter may vary. My recollection is that when MIDI was originally standardised, they needed to specify a maximum length, and that 15M was chosen somewhat arbitrarily (No tests were done, no eye patterns examined). Now midi is actually at heart a 5mA current loop interface running at a fairly low baud rate (31.25 Kbaud IIRC), so should be good for far more then 15m without any problem, however nobody really knows and it will depend a bit on the environment and the receiver. Interference is unlikely to be an issue assuming good quality twisted pair cable (Cat 5 counts), but bulk capacitance just might ultimately limit the length. Check MIDI manufacturers association pages, specifically: http://www.midi.org/aboutmidi/tut_midicables.php At the bottom it talks abut MIDI over Ethernet, with links. Cheers, Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] Half speed audio playback issue
Hi all, Just wondering if any of you can give me a few clues as to what the possible culprits might be in the case of half speed (one octave down) audio playback. I have recorded live audio into Audacity (stereo @48Khz) and exported it out to a sound file (Ogg, MP3). It plays fine in Amarok, but at half speed in both Ardour and Qtractor. Audacity is going straight to ALSA, Amarok through Xine to ALSA. Looks like some kind of problem with Jack, which is very possible, but I had no problem with using fluidsynth through Rosegarden (I could not load an audio file into it to test though?). I tried to play straight into guitarix, rakarrak, etc. previously and ended up with really bad distorted sound, that also sort of sounded like sampling/processing was not up to speed. I tried with an rt kernel, but no difference (flaky audio hardware is possible). Anyway, if you have experienced this before just let me know what you think it is. Need to dig in further myself, but a few clues from more experiences Linux audionaughts will probably help narrow it down faster. Any input appreciated. Thanks. Raymond Martin ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Half speed audio playback issue
Hi Victor, Would it be the case that Ardour etc are thinking this is a mono file? A stereo file played as mono could sound half-speed (maybe somewhat distorted, depending on the differences betweeen the channels). The problem seems to have been the data spread out over 4 channels instead of 2, thus halving the output in terms of speed and consequently pitch. Thanks. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Half speed audio playback issue
Hi Frank, Just seen this mail, My problem is that I export from my multi track machine running Beta 3 to my mastering machine with beta 3 as well. All set at 48 K from Ardour on one to Ardour on the other. I then export the two track master to disk at 44k 16bit. The I use Audacity to make my Ogg files. Thing is they now seem to run to fast on both machines, and when I send them by Email. Multi track machine has RME as sound card and inputs to my DDX at 48K master The DDX outputs to the master box from the Spdiff out, this is locked I assume to the DDX now locked to the RME card. Am I missing some changes here? When the ogg is emailed/played back they at a faster speed and the pitch goes up accordingly Are you sure sample rate conversion was done on the sound file when saved out? The lack of conversion would result in a faster sound file due to more data being packed into it. I do not see an explicit sample rate conversion function in Audacity in the menus, just project settings. Perhaps it does not work for you when you save. Regards, Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] (Somewhat OT) Advice needed on distro choice
On September 23, 2009 02:26:03 pm Fons Adriaensen wrote: Hello all, A number of system here, including the ones at the Casa del Suono are to be upgraded in the coming weeks. At the moment they all run Fedora 8, so the first choice would be to go for Fedora 11. But: * None of them will run Gnome or KDE. * Most will be headless anyaway. * I want access/privilege control to be based on user and group ID and nothing else. Privileges will never depend on the user having a local login or desktop session. * I'm prepared to have to spend some time configuring udev, pam, /etc/fstab etc. etc. etc. * What I certainly *do not want* is some parallel access control system that would interfere with the above, or that could modify/bypass/enhance in any way what has been configured there. * I'm *not* really prepared to have to waste any time reconfiguring the Kit family. Consequently I don't want to see any of them. So what distro should I go for ? Having to spend weeks compiling everything from source is not an option. If you look at the distro list at http://www.linux.org you can see a number of potential candidates (Power User distros). From a first glance a few seem possible to me: Slackware, CERN linux, CentOS (RHEL-based), Scientific Linux (RHEL-based), 64 Studio, amongst others. Which of them has a stock rt kernel is a good question (which general/regular distros have an easily accessible rt kernel?). Good luck. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Auto-wah plugin
On Thursday 20 August 2009 13:45:40 Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 01:36:23PM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote: I don't have a midi pedal to check whether the sweeping of frequencies will work, but you should really add automatic functionality for this also, That is implemented. I can't get that functionality currently. I tried changing the setting all different ways and it only sounds like it is cutting or boosting frequencies. The sweeping does not seem to be happening. Your docs also indicate that the pedal is needed for this. What gives? Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Auto-wah plugin
Hi Gabriel, On Thursday 20 August 2009 13:57:16 you wrote: Hi Raymond, On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Raymond Martin wrote: I don't have a midi pedal to check whether the sweeping of frequencies will work, but you should really add automatic functionality for this also, That is implemented. I can't get that functionality currently. I tried changing the setting all different ways and it only sounds like it is cutting or boosting frequencies. The sweeping does not seem to be happening. Your docs also indicate that the pedal is needed for this. What gives? I had trouble with this, too. See my other post for good settings. Which post would that be? Regards, Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Auto-wah plugin
Hi Gabriel, On Thursday 20 August 2009 16:32:17 you wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Raymond Martin wrote: I can't get that functionality currently. I tried changing the setting all different ways and it only sounds like it is cutting or boosting frequencies. The sweeping does not seem to be happening. Your docs also indicate that the pedal is needed for this. What gives? I had trouble with this, too. See my other post for good settings. Which post would that be? Hmmm... the one on LAU... sorry... see below. === From gabr...@teuton.org Thu Aug 20 08:46:20 2009 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:46:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Gabriel M. Beddingfield gabr...@teuton.org To: Fons Adriaensen f...@kokkinizita.net Cc: linux-audio-u...@lists.linuxaudio.org Subject: Re: [LAU] Auto-wah plugin Hi All, On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Fons Adriaensen wrote: The plugin could do both at a time, the 'foot' control would then shift the fequency range. Nice Wah! Thanks for the plugin! I played with this plugin last night and thought I would share the settings I liked best. Rig: Elect. Guit. w/humbuckers. I think I used the neck pickup. PodXT Live with AC-30 amp and Tube Screamer JACK Rack controlled by FCB-1010 Strong signal to audio card Tone: Santana-like Manual Wah Settings: Drive: -20 Decay: 0 Range: 0 Freq.: Set the expression pedal so that it sweeps between .4 (heel) and .75 (toe) Mix: 1.0 Auto-Wah Settings: Drive: Between -20 and -12 Decay: Between 0 and about .13 Range: Between 0 and .5 Freq.: 0.4 Mix: 1.0 Hope this helps, Okay, that gives me a little something. It still seems very light or minimal to what I am expecting. Perhaps this has something to do with offline processing in audacity compared to playing live with jack rack. Did you find it had enough depth? This seems to be missing for me. Regards, Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Licenses and copyright attribution (was Re: Impro-Visor created on sourceforge)
On Sunday 09 August 2009 12:41:26 Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: On Saturday, August 8, 2009, Chris Cannam wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: On Saturday 08 August 2009 13:25:09 you wrote: I know this sort of thing is easily overlooked, but it's probably illegal and certainly unethical to redistribute someone else's work without attribution (a basic necessity of copyright which the GPL doesn't disclaim). No it is not illegal at all. The only things required are those in the GPL, nothing else matters. Copyright law does; after all, that's the only thing that makes the GPL work. But I'm happy to admit that I'm quite unclear on this point, namely whether it's technically legal (even if offensively bad form) to redistribute binaries of a GPL'd work without any of the attribution that is required in redistributing the source code. I'd be interested in any more information about this. (Preferably not from you -- you've asserted too many wrong or disputable opinions as if they were fact for me to give any credibility to anything you write -- but other citations would be of interest.) There is not a single copyright law, but as many laws as countries. But if you mean that the copyright attribution is a requirement from the Berne Convention, I think that you may be right. Copyright. Examples and explanations, by Stephen M. McJohn. Page 262 http://books.google.com/books?id=Gq9VbEQnxaQClpg=PA262pg=PA262 Anyway, the GPL license does not explicitly require the attribution, unlike some other licenses like BSD and CC-By. Why should be explicitly required if it were a right granted by the law applicable in any state? The undeniable fact is that failing to properly recognize the authorship of some work is very ugly, and people showing such disrespect is a candidate for public blame. I'm not talking about you. In my experience when I've contributed to some project, I've almost always been credited. I'm not going to sue anybody that failed to do so, but they risk to face public embarrassment some day. When are people going to stop sending spam to this list. Give up people. Let these threads die already. 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 Friday 07 August 2009 20:10:14 you wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote: Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF documentation somewhere exactly about this point and they vehemently disagree with any attitude like that. We all know very well the situation of Emacs, Xemacs, and various other forks. The FSF is not the law. I suggest you look up Trademark Law to realize why you are wrong, and why you are subject to a lawsuit for knowingly creating a product that is infringing on an already existing trademark(Regeristered or Unregeristered would make a small, but only small, difference in this case), and can easily be confused as such. In fact the case against forcing you to change it is rather strong because not only is your product nearly identical in name, it is nearly identical in function and can be easily confused with the original. Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial interests, the program is non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything to be done about this for creating a free program from a free program. Maybe you should check the fact that there is already another program called improvisor that exists that is not Impro-Visor, it is a commercial company that could claim trademark infringement against Impro-Visor. So if anybody is in a problem it will be Impro-Visor first. 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 Friday 07 August 2009 20:53:05 Thomas Vecchione wrote: Once again forgot to hit Reply-All. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.netwrote: I'm not interested to take sides, I only want to learn about the GPL. Assumed that Miss B. forks a GPL'd project, as far as I understand the GPL, Miss R. is allowed to fork a project with a similar name, similar function, based on the open source code of Miss B. and if Miss B. had no time to open the source code, because she was in the manicure salon, but Miss B. accepted the GPL, e.g. a mailing list for manicure software can witness this, than Miss R. is allowed to decompile the software of Miss B.. Am I wrong? You are confusing Copyright and Trademark Law. Copyright law says that yes they can fork the project. Trademark Law however says that Miss B. is allowed to follow up legally to prevent a trademark, which can be registered or unregistered, from being confused by another similar trademark that might be confused with it. The fact that the trademark is similar, and the product is similar, is doubly damning in that case. Then you should talk to Bob Keller for violating the trademark of that real company that has a possible trademark infringement case against him first. Think before you write. 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 Friday 07 August 2009 21:15:39 Ralf Mardorf wrote: Thomas Vecchione wrote: Once again forgot to hit Reply-All. It's weekend :D. You are confusing Copyright and Trademark Law. Copyright law says that yes they can fork the project. Trademark Law however says that Miss B. is allowed to follow up legally to prevent a trademark, which can be registered or unregistered, from being confused by another similar trademark that might be confused with it. Okay, I guess you're right, because I have two web browsers, one is called Firefox and the other is called Iceweasel, for me, as a user they only differ by the name and logo and there seems to be a reason for this ;). There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the front even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as software patents. Too bad most people do not get that. 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 Saturday 08 August 2009 07:08:25 you wrote: Ralf Mardorf wrote: There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the front even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as software patents. Too bad most people do not get that. Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS, the creative commons should be forced as an agreement or something similar to this. I guess it should be possible to make out which project is which project. I would be fine with Impr-visor and Improvisor or what ever names Bob and you are using, but I don't hink it's perfect with those names. They are very similar forks, so very similar, but different names IMO are an good idea. Yes it is possible to figure out. It is very easy when people have some different documentation, copyright information, and so on. It is not a real problem. Those who think it is a problem need to do more reading and reflecting on the matter. This is FOSS, not commercial enterprise, things do not need to operate exactly the same as in proprietary situations. That goes as much for trademarks as it does for copyrights. Since there is so much confusion surrounding how copyrights work in FOSS, it should be no surprise that similar misunderstandings exist for trademarks in the same situation. Consider patents also. Patents on software are a big potential problem that has come to the top of the list. In the past they were not given nearly as much consideration, but the issue was forced into the FOSS world by commercial interests. The last thing that is needed in FOSS is free software projects going after other projects of the same nature merely for a name, but it has already started to happen. Those that do this are not really protecting anything that is of a FOSS nature, they do it for commercial interests. And that is where you see trademarks come up, when some company is doing FOSS, not usually when it is a person or small group doing it. If a small FOSS project goes after another one for trademark it is because they do not understand how and when trademarks apply and what issues it makes for FOSS. IMO the same name would be bad, and completely different names would be bad too. Anyway, I would like to have less confusable naming, that however will highlight the relationship. No reason to. It is all just preference. If you have a preference, that is your right. Don't worry I have already been through this trademark dispute thing with another project I forked. They made all kinds of crazy claims and did not understand how futile it is for one FOSS project to try to go after another one. I still have my similar name even though they have a trademark. Trademarks are for commercial interest. Claimed infringements on trademarks have to show that the existence of a similarly named product causes or potentially causes damage to the trademark holders product, company, bottom line, and so on. When you fork a FOSS project the intent is to improve upon something, not distribute a product of lesser quality. Most trademark infringements are about the passing off of a lesser quality product than the original. In FOSS how can this be determined? The license used in FOSS comes with no warranty, no guarantee, and so on. Can you see the futility of such a claim now? 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 Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 you wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote: Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial interests, the program is non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything to be done about this for creating a free program from a free program. Sorry you are incorrect. Then again you have shown a strong desire not to admit when this is the case in past discussions, so I don't expect you to change your mind. Trademarks apply to any product, be it software or physical, or company. A trademark is simply an identifying mark that differentiates something from the competition. This applies to Open Source software just the same as it does any other. Maybe you should check the fact that there is already another program called improvisor that exists that is not Impro-Visor, it is a commercial company that could claim trademark infringement against Impro-Visor. Possibly, I don't know the situation or history with those products. It is completely seperate from this situation however. So if anybody is in a problem it will be Impro-Visor first. No, it will be whoever decides to defend their trademark first. There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the front even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as software patents. Too bad most people do not get that. That is your opinion. I would disagree, very strongly in fact. Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS, the creative commons should be forced as an agreement or something similar to this. Once again, see what i already wrote. If a company does not defend its trademark, then the rights to that trademark are lost. Trademarks HAVE to be defended to remain valid. Thus forcing the CC isn't really an option as much as I enjoy the concept of the CC licensing. Trademarks can only be in violation when they are on similar things. Once again, WRONG. Trademark violations are when the use of a similar name, logo, image, etc. causes confusion with the original product. The products don't necessarily HAVE to be similar, just cause confusion with the trademark. Something funny about confusing names. For my needs jconv can be a very good audio application and a very useless Japanese code conversion. Which is why this does not apply as a trademark issue, it does not cause confusion with either products. So this would not be okay in Germany only, if there was a trademark applicable in Germany. Wrong, see above. No, you need an international trademark to have it apply in all countries. Trademark laws are different in different places. A company or whoever must register their trademark internationally to have it apply in all locations. Having it one country does not automatically extend it to others. Go check SF policy on trademarks. They do not deal with them because they differ from place to place. Then Bob is guilty first and my project name is just due to his applications name. Who is more guilty, a single person trying to do FOSS or a professor and educational institution that should be in a better position and act more appropriately? If my name is similar to theirs by derivation and that is similar to the commercial one, then Bob and his ilk have unclean hands before I ever made a project. Yes someone else did something wrong, I am just copying them so I must be in the right. That is EXACTLY it. /sarcasm There is actually nothing wrong, but if there were he would be guilty first. No trademark infringement of even the least kind has occurred on my part. Try to show any different. You cannot. Seriously, you need to understand what you are writing about much better before you spout off drivel as fact. I am not a lawyer, but I obviously understand trademark law much better than you do. Not only that as a moral or ethical issue which you seem to think you are taking the high ground on, this is just wrong. I only have a project called Improvisor, no software, no products. Even if there were the least chance of infringement it would all be directed at the Impro-Visor program not a remote SF project with no products of its own. Claimed infringements on trademarks have to show that the existence of a similarly named product causes or potentially causes damage to the trademark holders product, company, bottom line, and so on. Or confusion in the marketplace with that product. Try googling fireball and see how many things have that name as a company or product. They aren't attacking each other over it. I have an old quantum fireball disk drive and there is fireball whisky. They aren't going to file trademark infringement cases against each other over this, ever. Obviously, you do not understand trademarks much. I suggest you read up... http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm Specifically
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Saturday 08 August 2009 13:25:09 you wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote: This is just like the fact that there is no fork at present. Raymond, I notice that your binary distribution of Impro-Visor lacks a copyright note identifying the authors -- the README could be taken to imply that you are the author, although I realise you didn't intend that. Can you fix this, please? Of course I did not intend to specify anything other than the document itself was by me, but on the other hand nothing is being done wrong by leaving out attributions from a readme. I know this sort of thing is easily overlooked, but it's probably illegal and certainly unethical to redistribute someone else's work without attribution (a basic necessity of copyright which the GPL doesn't disclaim). No it is not illegal at all. The only things required are those in the GPL, nothing else matters. If the GPL does not claim that you need to specify attribution in some extra documentation then you do not. If you write documentation to go with the application then that comes under your copyright/GPL license, etc. And it is certainly not unethical either, that is a judgement call or a bias that differs amongst different people. If someone takes my work, under GPL or other FOSS license, I will consider everything to be 100% okay as long as they put the proper copyrights in where only the license says they are needed. The copyrights are the attribution and that is all that is necessary. I encourage you to take my work and do as I indicate, I will never make a remark unless a proper copyright is missing for the specific portion of the code that contains my work (you can quote me on that). That is all that is required. Anything above and beyond proper copyrights in the code is irrelevant. BTY, the binary does have the copyrights for the original authors in the About dialog. Raymond P.S. I even mention in the readme that it is not the original version (exactly) and that it is completely legal. I never claim copyright to have some copyright on the program. ___ 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 Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote: On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote: Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold. Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork of the project continues active development while the institute continues to develop their version then there will definitely be confused users at some point down the line. There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that. There is no fork, it does not exist. There is only a project with a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked program, no forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor changes in the Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make it better for others so they would not end up violating the GPL. I guess that was selfish. Can't you just change the name and leave this debate in the dust? I do not have to change the name of a non-existing entity, do I?! I understand that you have put in a lot of effort to get this far but now you are risking your rep by making a stand on a name that you didn't originate and therefore shouldn't feel any real attachment to. Wasn't much effort, haven't even begun really. What rep? No rep. Nobody knows what I am doing or going to do, except maybe my better half. Why project the future which does not exist. There is not really even a seed to comment on yet. Everybody seems to be going way overboard from my perspective. Nothing there to comment on really. No fork, no violations, no trademark issues, nothing. Why are we talking about nothing? 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 Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 you wrote: On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote: On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote: On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote: Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold. Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork of the project continues active development while the institute continues to develop their version then there will definitely be confused users at some point down the line. There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that. I think you may have confused the issue by stating at the very start of this set of thread that you were going to fork the project and that you had reverse engineered the binaries. I would have to look back to see if I actually wrote fork the project or if I wrote fork Impro-Visor. In any case, it is the application that is important, not the idea of a project. There is no fork, it does not exist. There is only a project with a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked program, no forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor changes in the Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make it better for others so they would not end up violating the GPL. Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended result of your efforts? A fork of an application is an application. What else could it be? All I am saying, very clearly I might add, is that there is no application that could be considered a fork and that is what all the discussions are about. I guess that was selfish. You are putting the words in your own mouth here. There's no need to suggest this even as a joke. I certainly haven't suggested it is the case. I better not use sarcasm, only others are allowed to do that 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 Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick Shirkey wrote: On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote: On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote: Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended result of your efforts? Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking either of the projects.) So this is a pre fork or a split or a bend but not an outright fork? IMO, it's so close to a fork as to be almost negligible. It's all the ground work in place but none of the follow through. It's like a psyche intended to frighten the recipient without actually doing anything specific? Yeah, the ground shakes and you get all frightened, but not much happens, yet! The Impro-Visor code is out and on SF, so it worked, didn't it. 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 Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts wrote: On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote: Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended result of your efforts? Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking either of the projects.) There is no decompiled source anywhere on the project. It is all code straight from the original Impro-Visor on SF. 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 Saturday 08 August 2009 15:59:56 you wrote: On 08/09/2009 06:05 AM, Raymond Martin wrote: On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts wrote: On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote: Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended result of your efforts? Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking either of the projects.) There is no decompiled source anywhere on the project. It is all code straight from the original Impro-Visor on SF. Ok, Just to get this straight in my head. After you decompiled the code and threatened to put the results of your labour online as a fork which encouraged Bob Keller to finally publish the code in a public repo you have now taken that code and changed it just a little bit, given it exactly the same name and are hosting it at the same location as the official public release? That is what is there for now. So lots of people have been complaining about nothing. 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 Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorfralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: Chris Cannam wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote: What possible counter-argument can there be left? http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining why you're wrong) Chris The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following one) again for Raymond, with attribution: Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. That's nice, but I would like for someone to show me how this pertains to the current line of discussion. The fact is that code does become GPL once you mix it with other GPL code. Whether you choose to break the promise you are making when you distribute it is another thing. That promise is something that is made with the license automatically whenever the application is distributed, just one thing a license can do that a contract would need a bilateral agreement for. Perhaps you should read that paragraph again in the context of how this whole discussion came about. Known free software, with a history of being free, distributed under the GPL with the source code in the past, was not being distributed with the source code at a point by the very same people. So where would the altered terms be if the binary was decompiled and source distributed for the application under consideration? The terms would be the same as they were in the past. Thus, there is nothing stopping the distribution of the code regardless of how it is obtained in this one particular case. It can be forced open in this case because it would result in code that was intended to be under the GPL in the first place, not some other license. There is a whole trail of evidence that can easily show it was and is GPL. The code could hardly be considered proprietary. An extensive look at license vs. contract for the GPL is found in Enforcing the GPL - http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf 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 Friday 07 August 2009 08:56:30 Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:51:08AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following one) again for Raymond, with attribution: Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. Which makes perfect sense. In a civilised society even a convicted thief retains all the rights to his legally acquired property. If any of it has to be seized, for example to compensate his victims, that action can be taken only by a court. Not by his victims or some self- appointed vigilante. Wow, do you live in some sort of utopia? Law enforcement in numbers of countries routinely seize peoples property when they are involved in or allegedly involved in crimes when there are no real victims involved. People's cars and other belonging are routinely seized at border crossings if someone is attempting to enter a country illegally. They never get their things back. No courts involved. So much for legal property rights. 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 Friday 07 August 2009 10:07:31 Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 09:14:23AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote: On Friday 07 August 2009 08:56:30 Fons Adriaensen wrote: Which makes perfect sense. In a civilised society even a convicted thief retains all the rights to his legally acquired property. If any of it has to be seized, for example to compensate his victims, that action can be taken only by a court. Not by his victims or some self- appointed vigilante. Wow, do you live in some sort of utopia? Law enforcement in numbers of countries routinely seize peoples property when they are involved in or allegedly involved in crimes when there are no real victims involved. People's cars and other belonging are routinely seized at border crossings if someone is attempting to enter a country illegally. They never get their things back. No courts involved. So much for legal property rights. The cases you mention such as border crossings are all related to security and not to civil justice. Splitting hairs. The fact that it is security and not justice makes these cases even more extreme in their betrayal of justice. There are cases in the US, for instance, where people growing marijuana for their medical conditions have had their homes seized and never returned. No justice there. That's real police stuff. Regardless of all this: a private person or group can't ever do this. Only law enforcement or the justice system can, and in the case of the first it is temporary (for securtiy or investigation), and if not it needs confirmation by a court. Not so. In most cases of seizure at borders (e.g., US/Canada, US/Mexico) the property is never returned, ever. The people who loose their property never get a day in court, ever. Look it up, it is a fact. 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 Friday 07 August 2009 09:51:05 you wrote: On 7 Aug 2009, at 12:55, Raymond Martin wrote: On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorfralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following one) again for Raymond, with attribution: Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. [...] Perhaps you should read that paragraph again in the context of how this whole discussion came about. Known free software, with a history of being free, distributed under the GPL with the source code in the past, was not being distributed with the source code at a point by the very same people. So where would the altered terms be if the binary was decompiled and source distributed for the application under consideration? This whole strand of the discussion came about because you had threatened to release a decompilation of Bob's ***MODIFIED*** preview release and I said: Which was so obviously GPL to begin with. And was obviously intended to be completely under the GPL in any release. 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. Previous actions on his part show it was GPL already. I wrote that sentence quite carefully but here it is again with some emphasis on the pertinent words: 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. You would be very hard pressed to prove in a court that the code wasn't intended to be under GPL in the first place. This is a very important point you are jumping over. There was a definite intention for ALL the code to be GPL, not just the old portion that was already out. There was NO intention for the MODS to be proprietary. There is a trail of public evidence of this. So this idea that you cannot decompile something INTENDED to be GPL in the first place is moot. In law it is called circumstances. They must be considered. Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF says: But most proprietary software companies want more power than copyright alone gives them. These companies say their software is ``licensed'' to consumers, but the license contains obligations that copyright law knows nothing about. Software you're not allowed to understand, for example, often requires you to agree not to decompile it. Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation, the prohibition is just a contract term you agree to as a condition of getting the software when you buy the product under shrink wrap in a store, or accept a ``clickwrap license'' on line. Copyright is just leverage for taking even more away from users. Indicates right there that there is nothing prohibiting decompilation, unless you agree in a contract not to do it. GPL is a license and there is no agreement to not decompile GPL programs because there is no contractual agreement not to do so. Thus, in the present case, decompilation does not result in any violation at all. All the code was and is GPL, decompiling a fully GPL program cannot result in any wrongdoing. Distributing it neither. 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 Friday 07 August 2009 12:40:44 Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:39:44AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote: Regardless of all this: a private person or group can't ever do this. Only law enforcement or the justice system can, and in the case of the first it is temporary (for securtiy or investigation), and if not it needs confirmation by a court. Not so. In most cases of seizure at borders (e.g., US/Canada, US/Mexico) the property is never returned, ever. The people who loose their property never get a day in court, ever. Look it up, it is a fact. You are completely missing the point, which is: *You*, as a private person, can not seize anything, ever. And if you think it's immoral for the law to do it, then it is even more so if someone takes the law into his own hands and appoints himself to be cop, judge and executioner. Show me where I have done something wrong. I am not seizing anything by taking what is freely given. Make sense. I showed in another post that there is nothing wrong with decompilation under GPL. If there is nothing wrong with decompilation and the code is 100% GPL then there would be nothing wrong with distribution either. That's not taking the law into your own hands, that exercising your rights. And by the way, it is not more immoral for a single person to take the law into there own hands than a government power. That is just ridiculous. Governments are immensely more evil when they wield tyranny over countless lives than what a single person could ever do. Do the math. 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 Friday 07 August 2009 17:31:36 Robert Keller wrote: On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:07 PM, drew Roberts wrote: Naturally, forking a GPL project is OK. Forking a project and calling it something nearly identical (removing a dash) cannot help but generate confusion and is an example of hostile fork. Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF documentation somewhere exactly about this point and they vehemently disagree with any attitude like that. We all know very well the situation of Emacs, Xemacs, and various other forks. So it is just too bad that he does not understand the benefits to his own project by having similarly named forks, but this is no surprise given his other misunderstandings about the GPL and free software. Here are some guidelines for forking, which seem sensible to me: Some of that is nonsense. Don't bother to reply. I leave this group with a fair amount of bitterness and disappointment in the way one of your members has conducted himself. To those who seemed to understand my position along the way, I thank you for your support. No, he is leaving because he realized that not everyone is going to automatically side with him on these matters. And in case you all do not realize it yet, there is no fork. So all this crap he is blasting out is stupid. There is only an SF project that hosts code for the exact same program, with no real changes to them. This is the typical behavior that I saw in the person, jumping to conclusions without checking the facts. See for yourself. There is a possibility of a fork, but no such thing exists at present. 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 Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote: On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote: This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not clear. No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL *if* they don't claim their own code to be GPL. In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed to be GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to it, not because it contained another author's GPL code. Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another author's GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the second option is available to the first author and the courts will have to sort it. The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code and it still can be put out under another license by the original author. So you are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be considered. It was understood about an original authors copyrights. Nonetheless, any code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another license. An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come under GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the original which must be distributed under the same license. See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). Read the sentence Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it. End of story. Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into effect. If they want to distribute their original code under a different license that can also be 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 created on sourceforge
On Thursday 06 August 2009 09:59:39 Chris Cannam wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:23 PM, drew Robertsz...@100jamz.com wrote: On Thursday 06 August 2009 03:51:30 you wrote: The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the Impro-Visor code be GPL'd, but Arnout and I were responding to the blanket use of GPL code makes it GPL (which would imply the second question above). And this I certainly agree with. Use of GPL code does not automatically make another program GPL. It just gives the author of that code a legal headache if the new program is not GPL. Yes, exactly. Pure BS. People who cannot read the GPL properly. 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 Thursday 06 August 2009 10:16:34 you wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote: Nonetheless, any code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another license. This is quite wrong and, frankly, far more scarily so than mere misunderstandings about what is actually in the GPL. The fact that you persist in it despite having had it explained to you several times shows a serious and potentially dangerous misconception about copyright, not just about the details of a particular license. I very much hope there are not many more people out there who share this misconception. That's funny because it is exactly what I think about your refusal to understand what is written in plain language in the GPL itself. Show me where you get your ideas. I can show you that mine come from the writing of the license. Plus, you definitely have taken one sentence and singled it out here. That is called cherry picking, taking an idea out of context to suit your own purposes. Thus it is people like you who continue to deny the actual language of the license that make it a constant chore to explain it repeatedly. 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 Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote: On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote: On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote: On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote: This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not clear. No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL *if* they don't claim their own code to be GPL. In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed to be GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to it, not because it contained another author's GPL code. Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another author's GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the second option is available to the first author and the courts will have to sort it. The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code and it still can be put out under another license by the original author. So you are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be considered. It was understood about an original authors copyrights. Nonetheless, any code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another license. An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come under GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the original which must be distributed under the same license. See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). Read the sentence Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it. End of story. Nope, sorry, I get your theory but disagree. (I think RMS agrees with me here as I pointed to in another post.) The license can say what it likes but the license is not the law. One can ignore the license, not accept it and break the law instead. Then the author of the included code has a legal remedy since copyright law has been broken.. They can go to court and the courts will deal with the issue accordingly. Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into effect. Only if you don't intend to break copyright law must you GPL your code. It is not something that the GPL can accomplish in and of itself. The law does not give the license that power to my understanding of it. The author must GPL the combined code, the original is obviously still GPL as per the original license. If they want to distribute their original code under a different license that can also be done. Eben Moglen in http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it. This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license text, so everyone is fully informed. Check that line near the end: no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. Now this is a lawyer for free software saying almost exactly what I have. The assumption is that if you distribute the software then you are intending to accept the license by doing so. Thus the license applies even if you are breaking some rule or law regardless of ignorance or intention. If that is not clear enough I do not know what is. Show
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:05:41 drew Roberts wrote: On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:18 lase...@gmail.com wrote: Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. I don't think this is correct. It would only mean that if he were not to GPL the code he would be in violation of the original author's copyrights (this is a generic he here and I am not speaking to this particular case as I have not followed this closely enough.) If he did not want to GPL his own code, he could stop distribution, work out another license with the original author or any number of other things surely. He would still have the already existing copyright violations to face should the original author choose to persue them though. This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not clear. 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. If I get the time, I seem to remember some FSF pages that disagree with this and point rather to the thoughts I posted above but I am snowed under at the moment. Again, this was about some app that was already distributed. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] A question for power HW experts
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:52:23 Fons Adriaensen wrote: Hello all, I'm looking for a high performance (e.g. quad core) machine to be used for audio processing (and running Linux of course). Rack mount is preferred but not essential. What would you recommend to look at ? I had been looking around a while back for a good audio motherboard and Gigabyte seemed to pop up quite a bit in terms of good SNR and other specs for onboard sound. As for offboard/adapter card, did you look at the M-Audio offerings? Your PSU can make a difference in terms of noise and interference, a lot of the ones your get with pre-built machines are crud. Get a good one (heuristic: heavier ones are better for the same price, wattage, etc.--big transformer, caps, heath sinks, and so on). The higher end ones come with good shielding on cables. 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 Monday 03 August 2009 01:28:14 Ralf Mardorf wrote: jaromil wrote: Welcome to Impro-Visor (Improvisation Advisor) Version 4, from Bob Keller at Harvey Mudd College. [snip] Bob Keller, Impro-Visor Project Director (README.txt) I don't like it, but it's not important if I or anybody else does or doesn't like it. The students are mature and if they are fine with it, it's their choice. And the good thing, there's no confusing list of students participating ;). Sure. Responsible choices. Jazz musicians don't learn to improvise by a bot, but by this discussion I learned a lot about the GPL. It would be fine if there would be an easy to understand Wiki about the GPL, then nobody needs to controvert the GPL on any developer mailing list. I find it frustrating to have to explain the GPL to people over and over. I have had to do it numerous times in the past and probably will in the future. I'm almost inclined to put up a web page with my explanations so I do not have to repeat everything again and again. Of course, there will still be those who do not read it properly and then disagree, at which point the same things will have to be explained again. This is what you have to deal with when it comes to a legal document. The language of theses types of documents is not everyday, so it confuses people. And the GPL is very light on legalese at that. The German Wiki seems to be such an easy to understand clarification, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License, but anyway, it differs to a lot of expert posts by this discussion. Ziel ist es, die Freiheit eines Programmes auch in der Weiterentwicklung von anderen sicherzustellen. on English this sentence means that it's particularly wanted that someone like Raymond is allowed to fork a modified project that original is from somebody else. The original Impro-Visor project is now hosted on sourceForge. This is using little changes as a red herring to try to take control of that project, apparently. (posted by keller91711 4 days ago) There's no red herring needed to use the libre that is guaranteed by the GPL. Just another offensive commentary that flies in the face of the rights guaranteed by the GPL. Anybody, according to that mentality, is evil if they dare fork free software. A whole world community disagrees with that attitude. If I do understand the German Wiki right, Bob Keller still is violating the GPL. This isn't an attack by me, it's confusing me, on English there e.g. is: you need to include any such compile-time configuration files, too (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html) Exactly. Just as I have indicated. Anyway, it's hard to understand what needs to be done and what not. As somebody who doesn't understand a lot of issues I was asked not to comment anything, by people who might have knowledge about the GPL, but on the other hand some easy to understand clarifications disagree with this knowledge. This is confusing and explains that it's hard to comply to the GPL and in addition to individual laws of some countries and different points of view by experts. Is http://gpl-violations.org right or wrong with it's interpretation of the GPL? They are correct. And I am echoing almost exactly what they say. 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 Monday 03 August 2009 01:39:14 Ralf Mardorf wrote: Sometimes, the process of installation is not facilitated by scripts, but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only mentions the word scripts. But when reading and interpreting the license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically only mean scripts, but any kind of software programs that are required to install a (modified) version of the compiled program. (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html) This I disagree with. The wording in the GPL is not as they are interpreting it. It is impossible to include every piece of software to create installable executables, that is why the wording in the GPL does not mention them. It would nice if everyone did that, in some cases these parts are feasible to include, other times they are too unwieldy or have license that disallow it. On some Linux distros RPM is used as the package manager. People on Windows do not have RPM, so they can never build an RPM without Linux (AFAIK). On Mac the usual way to install is by .dmg (Disk Image). This is an Apple specific format. Not available on Linux, Windows, etc. You need a Mac. Likewise, except for a few exceptional programs, you cannot build an .exe on Linux or Mac. It may be improper practice or plain just not in the spirit of FOSS, but you can use whatever program you want to build the installables. Just put the scripts used to do that with the source distribution so there is at least a remote chance that someone getting the package could use them. The point is not to obsolete a modified version before it has a chance to make improvements, as much as possible. How can I verify that my source code release is complete? This is quite easy. If you only use source code provided in that release, and you can use this source code to produce a working form of the executable code, then the source code release seems complete. If the build process fails, or you end up with a non-working executable, or you have no way to install the resulting executable, then clearly something is missing. (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html) Thus, if there is a working version available and you get the source but it won't compile, then the distributor is at fault for not providing a proper script to build it. They managed to build it, but now the code for it won't build. At that point the problem is either deliberate or a sign of incompetence. Due diligence on the part of the distributor before they ever distribute anything cures most problems before they arise. A little patience up front to check their work before the release goes a long way to avoiding problems. A major problem is that people too often have a flagrantly loose attitude about the whole matter. Very sloppy approach. The license is an afterthought. No, the license is number 1 (when it comes to distribution). If you keep your software to yourself then the license is at the bottom of the list. Priorities have to change if you ever release it to the general public. This is where the issue comes up. 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 03 August 2009 08:12:24 you wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest that Raymond keep picking the GPL issues of Impro-Visor, till everything is fixed. I'm not saying that Raymond should join now or that he can't have his fork, but I hope that at some point Raymond can join the Impro-Visor project and help improving Impro-Visor. Cause imho this will be the best for all parties including and especially the end-user. Hopes do not always come true. This case is probably one of those times because someone else has made it next to impossible to help the original. Take a little inventory. Kicked off group, when not even sending messages to it. Before that (last year), had messages censored due to differing ideas (uphold GPL, distribute source, add improvements). A mailing list for the SF Impro-Visor project is created. What chance do I have of getting on that or staying on it if allowed to join given the previous actions? So I have to create my own list where I know I will be fair and let everyone have their say. Let us not forget the negative comments on that group that basically attempt to alienate those of us who believe in FOSS from that project, as if there is something wrong with us. That is not helpful. It is very shortsighted to believe that the best interest of a project remains with the original. It may or may not, depends on the circumstances--the quality of the code and so forth. It is a myth that only the originators of a technology can make the best version. The history of computing disagrees with this attitude, no matter how many people seem to believe it. To better the software requires a different attitude, an open attitude. A closed Yahoo group, with censoring, kicking people off. GPL violations. Negative attitude towards FOSS, even after numerous messages and an apparent change. These kinds of things really do not shout free and open to me in any measure. I'm sure all this babbling has run its course for most on this list. That is why we can move discussions to my list, where everyone can argue to their heart's content. Or you can join the Improvisor Google group (http://groups.google.com/group/improvisor). I let anyone join and have tried to put the settings as low as possible to keep it very open. This is not what you are seeing with Impro-Visor. This is a clue that things really have not changed that much on that side. Otherwise, access would be open on that group and people would be allowed to speak freely on it. Now let's see if access on that group suddenly opens up. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
On Monday 03 August 2009 16:45:23 Julien Claassen wrote: Only one minor point: To my knowledge the FSF is in part there to protect the GPL and I think I read somewhere, that if necessary you can ask them to help. FSF cannot really do anything unless the copyright is theirs (they even encourage free software creators to transfer it to them so they can pursue these cases.). Only the copyright holder has the power to do anything really. Try http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ and http://gpl-violations.org. 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 Sunday 02 August 2009 16:31:55 Patrick Shirkey wrote: On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:49:52 you wrote: Any damage that resulted, real or imagined, can be traced back to the originators release practices in not complying fully with the GPL. If all things had been done to comply from the start then there would have been nothing to discuss. I agree that this could have been averted by a more judicious application of protocol on Bob's part. You have forced the issue and I think both parties have tried to make their case in a professional and non personal manner. Although I haven't read all the posts so I can't really quantify that last statement. It seems that things are moving forwards though? I hope that you will continue to be motivated to contribute to the project now that Bob has released it to sf.net as that would appear to be your main reason for forcing the issue. No. I have previously stated that I have a separate project for this now. I am also working on a fork, because after reviewing parts of the code I realize, as any professional programmer would, that this really needs a lot of fixing. I am already fixing some parts for my own use and later they will be put out. One thing that should be asked is why is all the documentation not available under a free license, just like the software? It is usual for the documentation to also be free for modification and distribution, or else further development is crippled to some degree by this oversight. And where are all the scripts, libraries, and so forth to create all the distributable packages. GPL stipulates that they must be included. Thus there are packages that cannot be generated with the Ant build file that is included. This is another GPL violation. So things are still not alright on the Impro-Visor project by their own hand in regard to licenses. 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 Sunday 02 August 2009 15:21:35 keller wrote: On Aug 2, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: As it's not particularly difficult to include the build scripts in the public repo it does appear that Bob is playing a game of cat and mouse in this case. That seems rather callous to me, Patrick. I am trying my best, in the face of people constantly yelling at me. You seem to take the claims that others make directly, without asking me first for clarification. A little calmness and courtesy would contribute immensely to the situation. Nobody is yelling at you. Please do not exaggerate. There are no other scripts. The only thing missing is the nbproject directory, which I am trying to force in, as I said. I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build an executable and others. For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was used? If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml. 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 Sunday 02 August 2009 15:47:32 you wrote: On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build an executable and others. For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was used? If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml. As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product that I was using on a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide it. Launch4J is FOSS and it is even hosted on SF. Anybody can get it for free. All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it convenient for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not allowed? No, I'm saying you have created executable packages using certain tools for which you have scripts. Launch4J seems to one of them. You can use whatever tools you want to create distributable packages, but if there is some kind of configuration file/script to use that then you should supply that along with the source code (even if the tools are commercial). FYI, this does not apply to the stuff to build on a particular platform that cannot be supplied unless the person has the OS (e.g., the Mac .dmg stuff can only be created on a Mac, AFAIK). 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 Sunday 02 August 2009 16:12:48 keller wrote: On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: But do you really *need* it, or is it just nice to have ? Open source development tools usually provide all that's needed. Fons, Just nice to have, as there is a end-user base that prefers such things and we support 3 different platforms, so it was very convenient. I have deleted all the installers and notified the users, anticipating the complaints. If anyone has a recommendation for a substitute for install4j, I'd appreciate hearing about it. I think you have jump ahead a little here. Maybe you did not see my other message. You can use whatever tools you want, just make any scripts associated with it available, regardless of whether users/developers can get the tools themselves. It would be better to use free tools for free software, sometimes you cannot. 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 Sunday 02 August 2009 15:36:34 you wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 02 August 2009 16:31:55 Patrick Shirkey wrote: I hope that you will continue to be motivated to contribute to the project now that Bob has released it to sf.net as that would appear to be your main reason for forcing the issue. No. I have previously stated that I have a separate project for this now. I am also working on a fork, because after reviewing parts of the code I realize, as any professional programmer would, that this really needs a lot of fixing. I am already fixing some parts for my own use and later they will be put out. All non-trivial code needs a lot of fixing. I suspect it would be more productive to ensure that the fixes and new developments from various parties happen in the same place, so that everyone can benefit from them -- and the obvious place for that is the repository that is managed by the team that wrote the program so far, since clearly they have proven capable (especially since there is no suggestion that the program is unmaintained or no longer developed by them). That argument holds little weight for me. Merely originating an application in no way guarantees quality. But I imagine that there may be personal rather than technical obstacles to that, and I quite understand that they can be significant enough to be sometimes not worth trying to overcome. It might be worth reiterating that under the GPL Bob's project is just as welcome to draw from the forked project as the fork is to draw from his. This certainly is the case. And I would not have it any other way. Of course, it goes without saying that use of other peoples code in your application, to create a fork or to improve an original with code from a fork, requires proper attention to adding the relevant copyrights in accord with the GPL. So if you use it, make sure you do it right. 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 Sunday 02 August 2009 17:28:01 keller wrote: On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: keller wrote: On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: I am referring to the Launch4J scripts to build an executable and others. For example, you have an .exe for windows, isn't Launch4J what was used? If so, there is a script for it, as indicated in the build.xml. As stated before, launch4j is a commercial product that I was using on a trial version. There is no way that I can provide that. I was considering buying it if worked well, but even then, I cannot provide it. All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it convenient for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not allowed? as stated in another mail, this is hogwash. you are perfectly entitled to chose whatever build tool you want, without having to redistribute it. just be careful that all the third-party software you include has the original build files included. As I am hearing now then, I can use install4j as long as I provide the install4j script (but not install4j itself) in the source repository. Is that correct? Yes. 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 Sunday 02 August 2009 17:59:24 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: keller wrote: On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: keller wrote: All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it convenient for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not allowed? as stated in another mail, this is hogwash. you are perfectly entitled to chose whatever build tool you want, without having to redistribute it. just be careful that all the third-party software you include has the original build files included. As I am hearing now then, I can use install4j as long as I provide the install4j script (but not install4j itself) in the source repository. i'm pretty sure you can use anything you want (or nothing at all). Not the case. Depends on circumstances. reasoning: 1. you are distributing third-party gpl code. make sure that it's installable on its own, don't remove its build and install scripts. 2. you are distributing your own software, as-is, with a license of your choice. nobody can force you to add installation or build scripts. what if you aren't using any and compiling and linking by hand? Under the GPL they can, if you distribute binary packages that are made with scripts. Else don't distribute those particular binaries. i'm not a lawyer (and also not interested in arguing the case). further discussions and inquiries are probably best directed at the FSF. Thus you don't really understand the meaning of the license then. my point was that it's totally misguided to accuse somebody who is opening their original software under the gpl of non-compliance on the grounds of not also providing build and install scripts for this original software. Then your point is incorrect, you just do not understand the license properly. If your point was right then no one who uses the GPL and distributes would have to provide the source code either. Both of theses requirements are in the same section of the GPL and apply equally to the originator as much as any other party using the license. Everybody knows and agrees that the source code must be provided, in kind any scripts used to create distributable packages must also be included. The relevant section is A.2 Terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification. You will not find anything in that section that singles out only those who modify and afterwards distribute/copy. The terms copying, distribution, and modification can be consider almost mutually exclusive. The terms there apply equally to all who distribute/copy, as well as modify. Pay attention to section 3 specifically. It starts you may copy and distribute, that is the general you. It does not say only those who receive from the original authors or modify the original, or something to that effect. And this is why it is expected that even the original authors must supply the source code. Everything after that, including scripts, comes under the same conditions. 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!?
On Thursday 11 June 2009 08:19:56 Grammostola Rosea wrote: lasconic wrote: I took some time yesterday night to take a look to improvisor code and estimate the cost of adding musicXML export. Import is indeed more complicated. I downloaded the code of improvisor 3.39. It's the last and only code available. Improvisor inner model is a little bit different than musicXML one. Common practice in musicXML is to don't time the chords and put them in the middle of notes. At least, this is my experience with finale musicXML export features. I managed to make a quick and dirty prototype to export a simple melody (no tuplet) and chord root and bass (no extension yet). Chords are in between notes but lily+musicML2ly shoud be able to deal with it. Unfortunately, 3.39 is an old version, and according to Bob Keller the code base changed a lot but it's not public yet. With some more voices, perhaps we can convince Bob Keller and his team to open up the repository to the public. After all, improvisor is a fine piece of software which can benefit from open development, moreover if time and resources are an issue. Lasconic 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. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
