[LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Dear Mr. Keller, you gave your average interesting project a bad note by keeping the source code closed. Why not open the source? Cross-fertilisation can make it much more interesting, everybody could benefit from it and you'll get deserved fame, even if it's shared fame. Just my 2 Cents. I'm also fine if the source will kept closed. Please excuse my broken English and my frankness. Regards, Ralf Mardorf lase...@gmail.com wrote: > [snip] Pardon Raymond :) only now I visited http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~keller/jazz/improvisor/. This looks like nice but not very interesting software and it seems to be the effort of Professors Keller or probably of his students. They could do this, because they didn't need to program some requirements before. I guess if they won't share their knowledge, they shouldn't use FLOSS, but pay for similar requirements. They look like they have the money to do this. It's always the same, some privileged people won't share. We are living in a dog-eat-dog society and this wasn't made by Professor Keller, he's a victim himself and unable to do better. Be lenient with him. The forge, http://sourceforge.net/projects/improvisor/, is a good idea, but I don't think that a lot of those students will change from Professors Keller's project to the FLOSS communities alternative, because of the relationship of dependence. Nobody should waste his lifetime with being annoyed about those people. There are other privileged people who share their harvest with everybody. Maybe Professors Keller will come to more academic fame by keeping his knowledge a secret, but who cares? At the end his work isn't much more than one of the thousands of workshops and chord and scale "computers" available for free by the internet, but his program has got the intelligence of Weizenbaum's Eliza. Hm? Are Professor Robert Keller and a Non-Professor Bob Keller twins? Cheers, Ralf ___ 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
Ralf, I think you have a misimpression, created by laseray (aka biophotoray aka Raymond Martin), who apparently is trying to steal control of my project, known as Impro-Visor. I do want to cooperate, and will be looking into what I can do to repair the damage he is causing. However, I need a little time, because I just got back from Europe and this is not my only obligation today. I can't move on the immediate demands of others, as this person seems to think. It would not be wise to contribute to his fork meanwhile, because there is a much more recent version that has not been released yet, including bug fixes to the preview version which was posted briefly as an executable (the only thing that is behind his asserted 'violation'). For reference, I include below a message from Raymond which exposes his intent. Whether or not there was a violation on my part, it is no excuse for his sort of malicious behavior. As I am not formerly a member of the linux-audio-dev community, I just now joined as a result of this. I must appeal to the reasonable members to understand and help me. Thank you. Regards, Bob Keller Impro-Visor project director Professor of Computer Science Harvey Mudd College Claremont, California 91711 - Begin message from biophoto...@yahoo.ca to keller On Friday 24 July 2009 19:52:48 you wrote: > What you said below is absolutely untrue. You have no right to make this > assertion. I already explained my circumstances and have no need to > continue to do so. There is no release at this time, so there is no current > violation. > > Please quite harassing me. What I have said is absolutely true, you are in denial. I have every right to claim so. You violate a license then you are a violator. What part of that do you not understand? Okay, no need to go on, but just don't be surprised if I fork the application or distribute the binary and source on other sites, including the preview version, which I have backwards engineered to obtain the source code already. There is nothing that in the GPL that says I cannot do those things. Also, don't be surprised when other people coming asking about this separate site/version. Don't be surprised when it has a very similar name also, there is no trademark on the term "Impro-Visor" and it is free software so there is very little that can be done about it. Say what you want then, but I will definitely explain the situation also and make it known why it exists and the history that brought it to be. Raymond End message from biophoto...@yahoo.ca to keller On Jul 26, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Dear Mr. Keller, > > you gave your average interesting project a bad note by keeping the > source code closed. Why not open the source? Cross-fertilisation can > make it much more interesting, everybody could benefit from it and > you'll get deserved fame, even if it's shared fame. Just my 2 Cents. > I'm also fine if the source will kept closed. Please excuse my > broken English and my frankness. > > Regards, > > Ralf Mardorf > > lase...@gmail.com wrote: >> [snip] > > Pardon Raymond :) > > only now I visited http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~keller/jazz/improvisor/. > This looks like nice but not very interesting software and it seems > to be the effort of Professors Keller or probably of his students. > They could do this, because they didn't need to program some > requirements before. I guess if they won't share their knowledge, > they shouldn't use FLOSS, but pay for similar requirements. They > look like they have the money to do this. It's always the same, some > privileged people won't share. We are living in a dog-eat-dog > society and this wasn't made by Professor Keller, he's a victim > himself and unable to do better. Be lenient with him. > > The forge, http://sourceforge.net/projects/improvisor/, is a good > idea, but I don't think that a lot of those students will change > from Professors Keller's project to the FLOSS communities > alternative, because of the relationship of dependence. > > Nobody should waste his lifetime with being annoyed about those > people. There are other privileged people who share their harvest > with everybody. > > Maybe Professors Keller will come to more academic fame by keeping > his knowledge a secret, but who cares? At the end his work isn't > much more than one of the thousands of workshops and chord and scale > "computers" available for free by the internet, but his program has > got the intelligence of Weizenbaum's Eliza. > > Hm? Are Professor Robert Keller and a Non-Professor Bob Keller twins? > > Cheers, > Ralf > Robert Keller Csilla & Walt Foley Professor Computer Science Harvey Mudd College ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 11:12:05 Robert Keller wrote: > Ralf, > > I think you have a misimpression, created by laseray (aka biophotoray > aka Raymond Martin), who apparently is trying to steal control of my > project, known as Impro-Visor. Calling what I am doing stealing is defamation of character. I think Bob better watch what he says. Hardly what you would expect from someone who thinks he is in such an irreproachable position. > I do want to cooperate, and will be looking into what I can do to > repair the damage he is causing. However, I need a little time, > because I just got back from Europe and this is not my only obligation > today. I can't move on the immediate demands of others, as this person > seems to think. Good luck with that. In my experience, there is little if anything a person can do about someone legitimately forking a GPL project against their approval. Using the GPL for a project is to give others approval to fork it, at will. Thus he shows a lack of knowledge about what he has gotten himself into in the first place by using the GPL. > It would not be wise to contribute to his fork meanwhile, because > there is a much more recent version that has not been released yet, > including bug fixes to the preview version which was posted briefly as > an executable (the only thing that is behind his asserted 'violation'). I have heard this before. All subterfuge to prevent competition. Did I mention that I have already forked other GPL projects before and tried all kinds of things to stop it. None of them worked because I was completely within my legal rights to do it. > For reference, I include below a message from Raymond which exposes > his intent. Whether or not there was a violation on my part, it is no > excuse for his sort of malicious behavior. He includes private messages intended for him only, that shows real character. There is nothing wrong with what I wrote in that message anyway. Perhaps others will not like the tone, makes no difference though. I think you can all see now the kind of person Bob is now by this post, exactly what I have been trying to tell everyone all along. > > As I am not formerly a member of the linux-audio-dev community, I just > now joined as a result of this. > > I must appeal to the reasonable members to understand and help me. Why should they help? Nothing wrong has been done. This is highly laughable. I think he should go to the FSF and cry, they will laugh also. I invite Bob to get a lawyer and try to sue me for doing what he has allowed me to do by way of the GPL. It is contradictory to attack others for what you have given them permission to do. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Oops, I sent it to a list were I'm not subscribed too. Here it is, on the right place: Original Message Subject:Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:48:15 +0200 From: Ralf Mardorf To: Robert Keller CC: lase...@gmail.com, LAU References: <200907251343.51403.lase...@gmail.com> <200907261032.12585.lase...@gmail.com> <4a6c6dbb.5060...@alice-dsl.net> <200907261227.30470.lase...@gmail.com> <4a6cb0dc.4050...@alice-dsl.net> <12bd32e0-7a32-4a2a-af72-775796462...@cs.hmc.edu> Robert Keller wrote: > [...] > As I am not formerly a member of the linux-audio-dev community, I just > now joined as a result of this. > [...] You're welcome :) excuse me for my first mail. It's awkward manipulative. LAU isn't a court, so we need not to judge who is the good and who is the bad guy. I assume that Raymond and you aren't bad. I don't understand the GPL and I'm sure that I'm not the only one. Anyway, I do understand what's the idea behind FLOSS. I'm convinced that it's allowed to do what you are doing, but for FLOSS and the world it would be good if knowledge would be shared, because this is the ideology. Everybody would benefit if you forge Impro-Visor. Most of us understand, Raymond too, that you first want to do your project for real and that you are the head of this project, but the day should come, when you share the source code. I'm not speaking for the list, this are just my 2 Cents. Thank you for your reply. Best, Ralf -- Secret of Tux: http://images.wallaceandgromit.com/user_uploads/forum_thumbnails/5/75/355.jpg "Gromit bit me" says HMV dog: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/GomitHMVPA_468x319.jpg -- Secret of Tux: http://images.wallaceandgromit.com/user_uploads/forum_thumbnails/5/75/355.jpg "Gromit bit me" says HMV dog: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/GomitHMVPA_468x319.jpg ___ 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
Hi Raymond :) hi list :) lase...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday 27 July 2009 11:12:05 Robert Keller wrote: > >> Ralf, >> >> I think you have a misimpression, created by laseray (aka biophotoray >> aka Raymond Martin), who apparently is trying to steal control of my >> project, known as Impro-Visor. >> > > Calling what I am doing stealing is defamation of character. I think Bob > better watch what he says. Hardly what you would expect from someone > who thinks he is in such an irreproachable position. > My recommendation is, that Bob forge the project within the next 3 month, that he will be the head of the project, but coders from the community get access to the source directories, after they have shown by some patches, that they are able to program, or what ever the regular way for FLOSS projects might be. >> I do want to cooperate, and will be looking into what I can do to >> repair the damage he is causing. However, I need a little time, >> because I just got back from Europe and this is not my only obligation >> today. I can't move on the immediate demands of others, as this person >> seems to think. >> > > Good luck with that. In my experience, there is little if anything a person > can do about someone legitimately forking a GPL project against their > approval. Using the GPL for a project is to give others approval to fork it, > at will. Thus he shows a lack of knowledge about what he has gotten himself > into in the first place by using the GPL. > 1. I can't see that Raymond causes a damage. 2. I understand that Bob and Raymond got exited. Now we should find a solution that's fine for all of us (and not take a stance if someone is good or bad). >> It would not be wise to contribute to his fork meanwhile, because >> there is a much more recent version that has not been released yet, >> including bug fixes to the preview version which was posted briefly as >> an executable (the only thing that is behind his asserted 'violation'). >> > > I have heard this before. All subterfuge to prevent competition. > Did I mention that I have already forked other GPL projects before > and tried all kinds of things to stop it. None of them worked because > I was completely within my legal rights to do it. > For the community there isn't a "much more recent version" at the moment. For some of us, me too, it feels bad if a binary done with FLOSS is released without the source code, even if it's a preview version and even if no licence is broken. I don't know if in this case a licence is or isn't broken. >> For reference, I include below a message from Raymond which exposes >> his intent. Whether or not there was a violation on my part, it is no >> excuse for his sort of malicious behavior. >> > > He includes private messages intended for him only, that shows real > character. There is nothing wrong with what I wrote in that message anyway. > Perhaps others will not like the tone, makes no difference though. > > I think you can all see now the kind of person Bob is now by this post, > exactly what I have been trying to tell everyone all along. > Yes, it was noticeable that he quoted a PM. I don't care about this, because we are humans and sometimes everybody of us make mistakes. >> As I am not formerly a member of the linux-audio-dev community, I just >> now joined as a result of this. >> >> I must appeal to the reasonable members to understand and help me. >> > > Why should they help? Nothing wrong has been done. > This is highly laughable. > > I think he should go to the FSF and cry, they will laugh also. > > I invite Bob to get a lawyer and try to sue me for doing what he has allowed > me to do by way of the GPL. It is contradictory to attack others for what you > have given them permission to do. > > Raymond Maybe we can try to find something similar to this and stop anything else: "My recommendation is, that Bob forge the project within the next 3 month, that he will be the head of the project, but coders from the community get access to the source directories, after they have shown by some patches, that they are able to program, or what ever the regular way for FLOSS projects might be." At least the source code should be available within the next 3 month. Ralf ___ 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
Ralf Mardorf wrote: > "My recommendation is, that Bob forge the project within the next 3 > month, that he will be the head of the project, but coders from the > community get access to the source directories, after they have shown by > some patches, that they are able to program, or what ever the regular > way for FLOSS projects might be." > > At least the source code should be available within the next 3 month. > Maybe we can try to find something similar to this and stop anything else: First thanks for your reply on list Bob, cause that's what we need, an open dialogue. The relation between Raymond and Bob is not on it's high at the moment, we'll leave it by that now ;) I don't think Ralf is the one who should do a proposal for a base for corporation. I think the owner of the project Bob, should clarify reasonably what his plans are with the project and how much space his is willing to give to other developers and contributors. Also he should say something about how he will act according to what the GPL license says. I think it's your turn Bob and don't speak to anyone personal... speak to the community. Thanks in advance, \r ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 12:16:17 you wrote: > Hi Raymond :) hi list :) > > "My recommendation is, that Bob forge the project within the next 3 > month, that he will be the head of the project, but coders from the > community get access to the source directories, after they have shown by > some patches, that they are able to program, or what ever the regular > way for FLOSS projects might be." > > At least the source code should be available within the next 3 month. Bob can certainly do that. It is his, or his groups, right to do that. It also is the right of anybody who gets the application. So, as I have said previously, there is no "we" to discuss this anymore. I tried to reason, use logic, point to the license, etc. None of that works. No matter how many times I say "read the GPL" or "read the FAQ page for the GPL", it just does not seem to be done. So there is no point in trying anymore. A separate project exists now. And whatever work is done on it will be to improve it. That is the point of having a project. Never mind this hand waving that is done to try to convince others that a fork can never be as good as the original or that some damage is done. These are typical tactics of those who do not want others to have any control. There is no damage, find some real evidence of that (not just pumped up emotions or other questionable things). It is very difficult to show damage on an offering that is free software. It is given away at no cost, without warranty, etc. So are forks of it, when they exist. Trying to hold someone up to some "imaginary" damage is a snowball in hell. 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
Grammostola Rosea wrote: > The relation between Raymond and Bob is not on it's high at the moment, > we'll leave it by that now ;) > Full ACK. > I don't think Ralf is the one who should do a proposal Full ACK. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 12:28:32 Grammostola Rosea wrote: > Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > "My recommendation is, that Bob forge the project within the next 3 > > month, that he will be the head of the project, but coders from the > > community get access to the source directories, after they have shown by > > some patches, that they are able to program, or what ever the regular > > way for FLOSS projects might be." > > > > At least the source code should be available within the next 3 month. > > Maybe we can try to find something similar to this and stop anything > > else: > > First thanks for your reply on list Bob, cause that's what we need, an > open dialogue. > > The relation between Raymond and Bob is not on it's high at the moment, > we'll leave it by that now ;) > > I don't think Ralf is the one who should do a proposal for a base for > corporation. I think the owner of the project Bob, should clarify > reasonably what his plans are with the project and how much space his is > willing to give to other developers and contributors. Also he should say > something about how he will act according to what the GPL license says. > > I think it's your turn Bob and don't speak to anyone personal... speak > to the community. Sure, he can do that. But do not make any more excuses. No one cares if he was here or there or did not have enough time to put out the source. You have to make time or don't put anything out. Excuses about these sorts of things are all very lame excuses and no one, except the very gullible, could believe them. Take responsibility for using the GPL and think ahead. It is no ones problem what someone else is doing. Other people develop GPL software and they put the source out at the very same time as the binaries as they are supposed to. I have no more patience for excuses. Others may not have heard them yet, but let me be the first one to point them out, when I read any more. Stick to those things which are relevant, the license conditions and very little else. 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
lase...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday 27 July 2009 12:16:17 you wrote: > >> Hi Raymond :) hi list :) >> >> "My recommendation is, that Bob forge the project within the next 3 >> month, that he will be the head of the project, but coders from the >> community get access to the source directories, after they have shown by >> some patches, that they are able to program, or what ever the regular >> way for FLOSS projects might be." >> >> At least the source code should be available within the next 3 month. >> > > Bob can certainly do that. It is his, or his groups, right to do that. It also > is the right of anybody who gets the application. > > So, as I have said previously, there is no "we" to discuss this anymore. > I tried to reason, use logic, point to the license, etc. None of that works. > No matter how many times I say "read the GPL" or "read the FAQ page > for the GPL", it just does not seem to be done. So there is no point in trying > anymore. > > A separate project exists now. And whatever work is done on it will be to > improve it. That is the point of having a project. Never mind this hand waving > that is done to try to convince others that a fork can never be as good as the > original or that some damage is done. These are typical tactics of those who > do not want others to have any control. There is no damage, find some real > evidence of that (not just pumped up emotions or other questionable things). > It is very difficult to show damage on an offering that is free software. It > is given away at no cost, without warranty, etc. So are forks of it, when they > exist. Trying to hold someone up to some "imaginary" damage is a snowball > in hell. > > Raymond There are some projects that become more than one project, full ACK, it's okay to do it that way. I do understand that for you there is no "we" with Bob (maybe someday this will change, maybe not). For the FLOSS world the LAD community anyway should try to make Bob open the source of his version of Impro-Visor. As I've written before, I can't see any damage you should have done. I now will read what Bob has to write about the project and when there will be the time, when he will open the source code. Cheers, Ralf ___ 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
hi bob! welcome to the linux audio developers' community, thanks for joining this list. i'm sorry that you are joining for rather unfortunate reasons, but licensing issues are always controversial and have a way of attracting hot-heads... so please don't be offended. i'll try to refrain from taking sides, as you and raymond seem to have some history togesther... the way i see it (and i may be mistaken, all my facts come from this and previous threads), your code is including other code which is licensed under the gpl. you can only legally do this if your code is also put under the gpl. which means that the moment you distribute your application, its source code must be made available, as it is now a derivative work of the other code you included (no matter how small), and its license demands that. no way around this. (strictly speaking, not even a busy travelling schedule, because you are not under obligation to some random strangers, but to the license of part of your software). which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking your project any way he sees fit. so much for the legal part. as to communication skills, raymond, i think you should go get a nice cup of coffee, tone down a bit, see what happens. this bears all the hallmarks of a excuse my french pissing contest, which might be explained by the history of your mutual correspondence, but from the outside, it looks like no big deal at all, and should sort itself out nicely. bob, i'm not a lawyer, but the way i see it, your options are: * comply with the gpl, which means your code is gpl also, and the source has to be available the moment a binary version comes out (even previews, betas, whatever). and then you have the risk that somebody "takes control away" from you. (not really a problem, see below.) * take your code proprietary, which means replacing all gpl code by self-developed or more leniently licensed code. that doesn't change the fact that all your code written up to *now* is covered by the gpl, but you could then relicense it and all future development any way you see fit. obviously, as a lover of (and believer in) open-source, i would warmly recommend option #1, although i've been with universities long enough to know about the difficulties involved in fund-raising for open source projects. as for "control", well, of course there is always the possibility of a fork, but then it's a fair free market for users and mindshare. if you decide to go proprietary, any gpl fork will likely see considerable uplift, and more than one company have made themselves obsolete by such a move - that's always the risk. on the other hand, if you decide to open up your stuff and encourage participation, your application will profit from an enlarged user and contributor base, while you still maintain control. as for taking patches: if people want to contribute and you can incorporate their work, great, it will make your project stronger. sometimes, your idea of software architecture might differ from that of a contributor, so you will reject patches. perfectly ok. of course, once many people have found their patches been turned down for reasons not entirely transparent or logical to them, there is new potential for a fork. or there may just be personality clashes, leading to a fork eventually. that's how it is. but market forces have a way of eliminating weak branches of a project rather speedily. i hope i was able to contribute some clarifying remarks. please take everything you read here with a metric grain of salt, and be aware that licensing issues happen to be very important to the open source crowd. it would be great to have you and your team join the open source community at large and see you on this list in the future - you will find there is quite some knowledge here that might be worth tapping into. best, jörn ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 14:33:30 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > hi bob! > > > which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking > your project any way he sees fit. so much for the legal part. > > as to communication skills, raymond, i think you should go get a nice > cup of coffee, tone down a bit, see what happens. this bears all the > hallmarks of a excuse my french pissing contest, which might be > explained by the history of your mutual correspondence, but from the > outside, it looks like no big deal at all, and should sort itself out > nicely. I can agree with almost everything else written in this post, but get off the attitude train people. It is not necessary to be nice all the time. There are well established reason for the attitude. When others start behaving better they will get treated more nicely (like not defaming others). And you are right. this is really not that big of a deal. Others are blowing it out of proportion to reality. Nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical is happening by the existence of a fork. In fact, a fork does not exist yet, only the same packages as on the Yahoo group, minus the GPL violations. It would have been very easy to do the right thing from the start. But that is the responsibility of others. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
lase...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday 27 July 2009 14:33:30 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > >> as to communication skills, raymond, i think you should go get a nice >> cup of coffee, tone down a bit, see what happens. this bears all the >> hallmarks of a excuse my french pissing contest, which might be >> explained by the history of your mutual correspondence, but from the >> outside, it looks like no big deal at all, and should sort itself out >> nicely. > > I can agree with almost everything else written in this post, but get off > the attitude train people. It is not necessary to be nice all the time. no, but it helps. particularly if/when you assume the role of a project leader. i have no idea what makes you so irritable n- just kick back and relax. for us, a fork is something natural and no big deal at all. i guess you are just trying to make a point. perfectly valid reason for forking. for somebody who is not accultured to the open source ways and customs (as in, "look, it's free, let's use it"), a fork must feel like a threat. it's easy to clarify that misconception, and will lead to an altogether more productive outcome. being accused of license violation (no matter how valid) is certainly something that will drive most people into a defensive position. you have a point, but i think with a little more ease the whole thing wouldn't have escalated to "tell X he's violating the gpl"-style discussions, which, frankly, is ridiculous. > And you are right. this is really not that big of a deal. Others are blowing > it out of proportion to reality. Nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical is > happening by the existence of a fork. In fact, a fork does not exist yet, only > the same packages as on the Yahoo group, minus the GPL violations. > It would have been very easy to do the right thing from the start. But > that is the responsibility of others. why not just quietly smile to yourself with the warm fuzzy feeling of being right? without snide remarks for a week or so, everybody will beget a hundred projects and live happily ever after. and now grandfather must retire to bed. ___ 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
2009/7/27 Jörn Nettingsmeier : > which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking > your project any way he sees fit. It isn't necessarily the case that he is entitled to fork it. Raymond has repeatedly said that it was distributed to him without a GPL license. If a program is distributed to you under some proprietary terms, but it uses some GPL code, then it is presumably violating the terms of the GPL and so should not have been distributed. Possible remedies depending on the circumstances might include GPL'ing the program or ceasing distribution. But these are remedies between that program's distributors and the authors of the GPL'd code; the recipients of the improperly licensed program can't make any such remedy themselves. You can't just decide unilaterally that the ostensibly proprietary code was improperly licensed and so go and copy it to all your friends. In this case, the situation is probably moot since Bob has said he intended to publish under the GPL from the outset, but I think that is the only thing that might make this action defensible. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:02:47 Chris Cannam wrote: > 2009/7/27 Jörn Nettingsmeier : > > which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking > > your project any way he sees fit. > > It isn't necessarily the case that he is entitled to fork it. Raymond > has repeatedly said that it was distributed to him without a GPL > license. > > If a program is distributed to you under some proprietary terms, but > it uses some GPL code, then it is presumably violating the terms of > the GPL and so should not have been distributed. Possible remedies > depending on the circumstances might include GPL'ing the program or > ceasing distribution. But these are remedies between that program's > distributors and the authors of the GPL'd code; the recipients of the > improperly licensed program can't make any such remedy themselves. > You can't just decide unilaterally that the ostensibly proprietary > code was improperly licensed and so go and copy it to all your > friends. > > In this case, the situation is probably moot since Bob has said he > intended to publish under the GPL from the outset, but I think that is > the only thing that might make this action defensible. It is moot. I previously gave proof of the GPL header in one of the Java files of one of the packages up on my project. So there was never any question of whether this was GPL or proprietary. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
Chris Cannam wrote: > 2009/7/27 Jörn Nettingsmeier : > >> which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking >> your project any way he sees fit. >> > > It isn't necessarily the case that he is entitled to fork it. Raymond > has repeatedly said that it was distributed to him without a GPL > license. I have asked Mr Keller two times if Impro-Visor was released under GPL license, which he confirmed to me and also to others. And Mr Keller still is planning to release it with the GPL license, if I understood him right. Regards, \r ___ 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 Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 08:33:30PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > welcome to the linux audio developers' community, thanks for joining > this list. (and lots more) While being away to have dinner at some nice place in the Italian countryside I've been musing about writing to prof. Keller. No need to do so as Joern has basically said everything I'd wanted to say. But I want to repeat his welcome, and would want to reassure Bob that most of us are considerably less corrosive and rude than the one member he's had to deal with up to now. Kind regards from hot Parma, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga. ___ 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
One thing I think everyone can appreciate is when there is an issue concerning licensing that the responsible party does not turn around on another list/group and make it sound like the "open source" people are bad guys preventing others from doing what they want. The actually facts of the situation are that people should make an effort to get things sorted out before they ever distribute any code or binaries. Attempts by others to set things right means they are well-intentioned, not the other way around as expressed on that group. Shifting the burden of responsibility onto others is a good way to have issues come back at you in the future. It really does not show good intentions. I mean, how difficult would it have been to just mention there was a problem and that it would be fixed as things progress. Not very hard at all. So there was no need for trying to paint others as the culprits in some bad situation which the person brought on their self. Behavior like that just makes me even more inclined to fork an application because I know that I will respect licenses and clear all the little issues up. Plus I welcome discussion, whether agreeing or disagreeing with my own views. If you want to discuss things you can do so by joining the Improvisor mailing list on the project (http://sf.net/projects/improvisor). Anybody can, that includes Mr. Keller, because that is how people cooperate and participate, by not shutting people out. 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 Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Raymond Martin wrote: > > One thing I think everyone can appreciate is when there is an issue > concerning licensing that the responsible party does not turn around > on another list/group and make it sound like the "open source" people > are bad guys preventing others from doing what they want. > > The actually facts of the situation are that people should make an > effort to get things sorted out before they ever distribute any code > or binaries. Attempts by others to set things right means they are > well-intentioned, not the other way around as expressed on that > group. > > Shifting the burden of responsibility onto others is a good way to > have issues come back at you in the future. It really does not show > good intentions. > > I mean, how difficult would it have been to just mention there was a > problem > and that it would be fixed as things progress. Not very hard at all. So > there > was no need for trying to paint others as the culprits in some bad > situation > which the person brought on their self. > > Behavior like that just makes me even more inclined to fork an application > because I know that I will respect licenses and clear all the little issues > up. Plus I welcome discussion, whether agreeing or disagreeing with my > own views. > > If you want to discuss things you can do so by joining the Improvisor > mailing > list on the project (http://sf.net/projects/improvisor). Anybody can, > that includes Mr. Keller, because that is how people cooperate and > participate, by not shutting people out. > > Raymond > 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. Regards, \r ___ 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 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] At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: > On Monday 03 August 2009 08:12:24 you wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Raymond Martin > 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. True most of the time ;) > 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? I think the changes to get on it is pretty high, if you and Prof Keller takes time, also for dialogue. I think he is open for it. > 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. You're right, but maybe it was a reaction on negative comments he got and misunderstanding about GPL. > > > 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. You can join and make your improvements to Impro-Visor. If they not accept it, we can see what the arguments are and if they're right or not. I'm not interested in examples from the past though. > > > 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. you're right. But you also have seen that the attitude of the project is changing now, with the change it will reach a satisfying state for many of us. > > > 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. Impro-Visor has launched an open mailinglist now. Kind regards, \r ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
