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 Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard wrote:
The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
to distribute it.
No, it does
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 02:53:35 Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:38:18PM -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. That is
the viral nature of GPL. (...) The code is automatically GPL by way of
use of other GPL code.
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code.
This is not true. It may simply make it code that was distributed in
violation of the GPL.
You are wrong. Read the GPL.
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 08:30:00 Thorsten Wilms wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 08:08 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote:
you wrote?
I can't understand how you could ever look into a mirror with good
conscience while having your mail user agent
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 11:11:46 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
Okay, a last not to the list, to avoid that somebody else tries to ad
fuel to the fire.
Everybody can see by the header of the mail what mail client somebody is
using ;).
For Thunderbird there's the Match all
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 05:08:49 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Dear linux-audio developers,
I have created New Project https://sourceforge.net/projects/impro-
visor/
Thanks
for Impro-Visor, which is its correct name. I will populate the
source later today, as I need
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:01:36 alex stone wrote:
Just on a more serious note, amidst all this mayhem and frivolity, we
forked a project recently to more specifically add and modify a set of
tools for a defined purpose.
Unlike this trainwreck, we not only tried our best to do so in a
decent
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 10:39:45 you wrote:
Raymond might be right or wrong.
I remember some mails were people recommended Raymond to be cool, even
if Bob might be wrong. I wonder why people now can't be cool, while they
guess Raymond is wrong!
So, even if Raymond should be wrong, why do
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 12:33:19 you wrote:
P.S. Bob kicked me off his Yahoo group with this new release he
just made.
Why would he do that? He never let me post any message previously
without
censoring or dumping them. So I haven't even sent any that might be
questionable to him since
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt,
COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt.
Is there anything else I should have?
I
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 15:02:48 you wrote:
lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Bob Keller at the moment is willing to comply with the GPL, it might be
a little bit late, but now he does, even if he needs still some time to
do it 100% perfect.
Wrong! Now he still does not. Past two replies of mine show
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 15:25:51 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt,
COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt.
Is there anything else I
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 19:05:57 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, he is one big fat liar.
Do you really think this tone helps in any way whatsoever? Maybe you
should try defending the GPL with more maturity than that typical of
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 18:58:40 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
One of the main reasons why R. Stallman started GNU/FSF/GPL because of
it's social aspect. You learn kids on schools for example to corporate
and help
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:27:20 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 19:36 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 19:05:57 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, he is one big fat liar.
Do you really
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 19:56:34 you wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:36 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Your goal of GPL compliance is a noble one, and entirely correct. But
... your tactics have become are really offensive to more and more of
us, and to claim that you take inspiration from
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:35 you wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:36 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
I blocked you last Friday, actually, when you were sending me those
flaming messages, not last night when I posted the release. I was
actually getting quite disturbed about your behavior, and
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:40:38 you wrote:
By blocked I meant banned. There is no separate thing as blocked
in the Yahoo! groups.
I know full well when I did it and it was last week after I was being
flamed, not last night.
By calling me a liar, you are just digging a hole for
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:48:33 you wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:41 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... more of the usual ... ]
Again, it is funny how YOU take things out of context. I was referring to
one person, not everybody.
The context was:
Hell, I am a card carrying member
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:28:05 you wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:44 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 21:51:12 you wrote:
Yes, you are a liar.
Show me where the hole is?
There is no reason to remove someone from a group for emails
they send to you privately. That is why you are so very much a liar.
Raymond
I am a liar because I banned you from my group?
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 you wrote:
That woulds not be a violation at all. It is/was all under GPL.
Wrong. Because Bob violated the GPL, right?
By not putting a licence file or giving the source. You put a license
and provide the source. No more violation.
Remember? I'm pretty
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0700, Robert Keller wrote:
Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how transparent this
situation is.
Out of curiosity I checked. Assuming the entire source code of the
project is contained in what
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
On Monday 27 July 2009 13:10:50 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I have contacted sourceForge
about his posting of sources relating to the project, and they
suggested filing a copyright infringement (the project is copyright by
me and Harvey Mudd College).
You don't want that Raymond does forge his
On Monday 27 July 2009 14:19:30 Thorsten Wilms wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 13:34 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Size of GPL code included is irrelevant.
True.
Inappropriate expectations. No license file was included in distribution,
no text to indicate GPL. GPL violation #1.
Yes, but
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
On Monday 27 July 2009 15:16:15 Robert Keller wrote:
Dear linux-audio developers,
I have created New Project https://sourceforge.net/projects/impro-
visor/ for Impro-Visor, which is its correct name.
It is the correct name for Impro-Visor. My project is named Improvisor
for a reason. And you
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:02:47 Chris Cannam wrote:
2009/7/27 Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de:
which means that raymond has a point. and he is also entitled to forking
your project any way he sees fit.
It isn't necessarily the case that he is entitled to fork it. Raymond
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:33:48 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
While I'd normally respect the private nature of any
message, this one goes well above any reasonable limit
so I do feel free to quote it:
See this is exactly the kind of person that is like keller.
Disrespects privacy, sides with the
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:45:37 Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Metallica gone GPL? :-D
More like jazz fusion.
Raymond
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
On Monday 27 July 2009 18:57:50 Nick Copeland wrote:
Man, This discussion is too good not to stick an oar in. As far as Fons
goes, the forwarded mail is simply stoking the flames. I have a few email
from him, privately, that are extremely derogatory of anybody on this list
with artistic
On Sunday 26 July 2009 03:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 01:20 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
Hi,
...
The main point I remembered from the last thread with Impro-Visor in
the title: It uses gpl software itself. Which means that it has to
publish the modifications of
On Sunday 26 July 2009 10:04:27 you wrote:
lase...@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to cooperate with people, but it was just too difficult for them
to admit being wrong.
Hardened fronts needs to calm down and then to find a way out the tight
corner. Everybody needs a chance, otherwise he might
On Sunday 26 July 2009 10:52:43 you wrote:
...
By moral you are right, but by some laws you might only attain one's
ends by diplomacy. Dunno. And I'm not diplomatic too.
Sure. You do not have to be diplomatic about everything. You have to be right
about what you are trying to accomplish. So I
On Sunday 26 July 2009 15:53:30 nescivi wrote:
On Sunday 26 July 2009 09:31:10 lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Impro-Visor compiles in the jMusic code, which makes it even more
evident that there is a violation. And the header clearly mentions
using jMusic. So there is no mystery in whether this
On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:09:26 you wrote:
While you have every right to fork the code, one quibble I have (most
likely just with your wording) is where you say that they are
obligated to provide the binary. They have no such obligation
whatsoever. If they provide a binary they are
On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:53:01 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
...
The guy removed the preview version from his website.
You don't have to release the source of development versions.
Yes you do. This has been explained previously.
I asked this on #gnu , they told me, it is not necessary
I
On Saturday 25 July 2009 18:14:45 you wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 16:23 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:53:01 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
...
The guy removed the preview version from his website.
You don't have to release the source of development versions.
Hi all,
If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the latest Impro-visor version,
which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to the terms of the
GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know and I will send it.
I'm sure it won't compile immediately, since there are a
On Sunday 19 July 2009 11:12:33 Dave Phillips wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 19 July 2009, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the latest Impro-visor
version, which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to
the terms of the GPL). So if
On Sunday 19 July 2009 13:24:25 you wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
To paraphrase the GPL, the source code must be available along with the
binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer
(valid for three years) must accompany the
This should settle any doubts people have about there being a GPL violation,
along with understanding how the GPL is properly applied. Here is part of
the header from a file in the previous version of Impro-Visor. No notice to
any change was given with the current preview version and jMusic code
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
