Robert Keller wrote:
On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote:
On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20 lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard wrote:
[snip]
On another related
PS:
Even if you changed headers
original done by other authors for more than 50% of the code, it must be
noticeable who was the original author and that you changed it. There's
a stipulation: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent
notices stating that you changed the
On Aug 2, 2009, at 12:57 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Hi Bob :)
the headers done by other authors are still copyright by the
original authors. The code done by the Harvey Mudd College is
copyright by it. This always must be recognisable. I didn't download
your source code, that's why I
Robert Keller wrote:
[snip] the code has been through thousands of versions and multiple
repositories.
If you take care to name the original authors and the authors who did
modifications and the dates of the modifications, it also will help you
always to know exactly how you build your own
Hi,
When you want to send SysEx messages, you should split them into small
chunks that are scheduled at proper times so that the MIDI bandwidth
is not exceeded. (aplaymidi does something like this if you give it
a .mid file with huge SysExes.)
However, for this it would be easier to use
DISCLAIMER
I don't want to discuss the merits of any particular
case. If I refer to Prof. Keller it is only by way of
example, and not to suggest he should justify himself
on this list. Of course I'm still interested in his
views on these matters.
END DISCLAIMER
Prof. Keller writes 'We employ
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
DISCLAIMER
I don't want to discuss the merits of any particular
case. If I refer to Prof. Keller it is only by way of
example, and not to suggest he should justify himself
on this list. Of course I'm still interested in his
views on these matters.
END DISCLAIMER
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Prof. Keller writes 'We employ the students ...'.
[This] is certainly not correct for any normal student
who would actually be paying the institute instead
of the reverse. (..) it would seem morally wrong (to me)
if the
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:31:41PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
The institute might have a copyright for the software's name and the logos,
but each coder has to copyleft his changes on GPL code.
No institute can take on a copyright, while the institute is using GPL
licensed code.
I'm not
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 13:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Referring to the copyleft statements by Stallman and the FSF you can
have a copyright by FLOSS, by GNU, but not by the GPL itself. The
institute might have a copyright for the software's name and the logos,
but each coder has to
Arnout Engelen wrote:
I'm not quite sure whether I understand you correctly, but it seems you're
not entirely right here.
If you don't have the copyright to a piece of code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not allowed*
to distribute this
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
Best,
dp
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
On 08/02/2009 06:51 AM, Robert Keller wrote:
On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote:
On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20 lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard wrote:
The
Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
Best,
dp
I programmed free software without using any code of other people, in
Germany I automatically have the
Hi,
On Sunday 02 August 2009 14:25:19 Dave Phillips wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
I didn't yet take part in the discussion. But I am a copyright-holder. Both
private (GPL:)
On Sunday 02 August 2009 07:56:41 Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:31:41PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
...
To distribute the code, you must either get the copyright on the work back,
or get permission from the actual copyright holder (employer, institution)
to do so.
Right.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 08:25:19 Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
I have copyrighted work out there. These are mostly FOSS. GPL stuff, mostly,
but
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
As I have written before, less college tuitions are similar to being paid.
Absolutely not.
If you run a business and I am your customer I am in no
way bound by any deals you make with suppliers, sponsors,
or whatever. The price I
On 08/02/2009 07:25 PM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
From my count it's about 90% of respondents so far.
Cheers.
Patrick Shirkey
On 08/02/2009 08:00 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
As I have written before, less college tuitions are similar to being paid.
Absolutely not.
If you run a business and I am your customer I am in no
way bound by any deals
Arnold Krille wrote:
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you did some kind of
work, e.g. being a developer for a company, it implies that the employer
will take on the copyright and that you aren't
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
As I have written before, less college tuitions are similar to being paid.
Absolutely not.
If you run a business and I am your customer I am in no
way bound by any deals you make with suppliers,
Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnout Engelen wrote:
If you don't have the copyright to a piece of code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not
allowed*
to distribute this
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnout Engelen wrote:
If you don't have the copyright to a piece of code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not allowed*
to distribute this code. Not under the GPL, and not under
I have notice I forgot to send this mail to LAD as well. Sorry :)
Here it is.
Of course, thanks in advance.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Carlos Sanchiavedraz csanche...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:18:17 +0200
Subject: Python and MIDI orientation for a project
To:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 11:10:35PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/02/2009 08:00 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
As I have written before, less college tuitions are similar to being paid.
Absolutely not.
If you run a
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:25:19AM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
At least in the Netherlands (and i believe this goes for most if not all of
Europe),
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnold Krille wrote:
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you did some kind of
work, e.g. being a developer for a
On Sunday 02 August 2009 18:22:56 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnold Krille wrote:
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you did some kind of
work, e.g.
On 08/02/2009 08:22 PM, Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnout Engelen wrote:
If you don't have the copyright to a piece of code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not allowed*
Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:25:19AM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
At least in the Netherlands (and i believe this goes
Arnold Krille wrote:
On Sunday 02 August 2009 18:22:56 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnold Krille wrote:
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not
On 08/02/2009 08:41 PM, Arnold Krille wrote:
On Sunday 02 August 2009 18:22:56 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnold Krille wrote:
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure?
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Even if you changed headers original done by other authors for more
than 50% of the code, it must be noticeable who was the original author
and that you changed it. There's a stipulation: a) You must cause the
modified files
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:40:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On the other hand, if a company pays you a regular salary and the job is
named developer, it might include that a copyright will subrogate to
the employer, even if there isn't any stipulation saying this. Here I'm
not sure.
It is not bound
On Sunday 02 August 2009, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
Best,
dp
Everything I ever wrote with 3 exceptions, carried a copyright (date) Maurice
E.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Shirkey
pshir...@boosthardware.com mailto:pshir...@boosthardware.com wrote:
This whole problem could have been solved if you had originally
provided Ray with access to the source when he asked for it, but
in essence you should be making
hollun...@gmx.at wrote:
It feels like my several year old PC will crap out soon for one reason
or another, so I need a replacement, better sooner than later.
This time it should be a laptop and I heard that formerly IBM and now
Lenovo thinkpads are of good build quality, even if they only come
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 14:33 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Dunno what's called trademark and what's called copyright
Then you probably shouldn't be attempting to discuss copyright law
-dr
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:49:52 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Shirkey
pshir...@boosthardware.commailto:pshir...@boosthardware.com wrote:
This whole problem could have been solved if you had originally
provided Ray with access to the source when
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
David Robillard wrote:
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 14:33 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Dunno what's called trademark and what's called copyright
Then you probably shouldn't be attempting to discuss copyright law
-dr
As I've written, a logo in Germany can be a trademark, but you need to
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
Hi everyone,
changing a bit of the subject in this list, is anyone here going
to the ICMC? I'll be in Montreal for a week from 17/08, it'll be
nice to meet some of you there.
Regards
Victor
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
On Aug 2, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
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
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Fons Adriaensenf...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
Prof. Keller writes 'We employ the students ...'.
That would certainly be the case for a post-graduate
student who becomes a teaching or research assistant
and who receives a stipend from the institute or any
of its
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
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
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
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,
On Sunday, 2 August 2009 at 21:36, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
can we please bury this urban myth that anybody who releases software
under the gpl is legally bound to include makefiles and such?
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For
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,
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 12:47:32PM -0700, keller wrote:
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.
Including a
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
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
Forest Bond wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Even if you changed headers original done by other authors for more
than 50% of the code, it must be noticeable who was the original author
and that you changed it. There's a stipulation: a) You must
Arnold Krille wrote:
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:40:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On the other hand, if a company pays you a regular salary and the job is
named developer, it might include that a copyright will subrogate to
the employer, even if there isn't any stipulation saying this. Here I'm
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
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
Christian Ohm wrote:
On Sunday, 2 August 2009 at 21:36, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
can we please bury this urban myth that anybody who releases software
under the gpl is legally bound to include makefiles and such?
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
The project now has a mailing list.
Hint, hint.
-dr
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
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
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:12:48PM -0700, keller wrote:
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
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
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,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
re all,
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 03:29:53PM +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:25:19AM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion
are copyright holders ? How many of you
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,
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:20:23 victor wrote:
Hi everyone,
changing a bit of the subject in this list, is anyone here going
to the ICMC? I'll be in Montreal for a week from 17/08, it'll be
nice to meet some of you there.
I'll be there.
it's only a short bikeride away for me, and I did
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 20:20 +0100, victor wrote:
Hi everyone,
changing a bit of the subject in this list, is anyone here going
to the ICMC? I'll be in Montreal for a week from 17/08, it'll be
nice to meet some of you there.
Tempting...
-dr
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
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:12:48PM -0700, keller wrote:
If anyone has a recommendation for a substitute for install4j, I'd
appreciate hearing about it.
There's Raymond's post claiming that this tool is actually
freely available - I don't know.
On sourceforge
jaromil wrote:
re all,
the GNU GPL agile copyright registration aimed at freedom helps us
little fishes survive despite the marauding giants - institutions,
corporations, etc. as in a student - university relationship can be.
a common situation of attribution of authorship in
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
