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
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
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 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
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
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
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 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
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,
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 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
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 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 raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
package results in something that violates the GPL
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 raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
package results
Just on a more serious note, amidst all this mayhem and frivolity, we
forked a project recently to more specifically add and modify a set of
tools for a defined purpose.
Unlike this trainwreck, we not only tried our best to do so in a
decent way, but the original author was thoroughly civilised
-- Forwarded message --
From: alex stone compos...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [LAD] Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond
To: Arnold Krille arn...@arnoldarts.de
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Arnold Krillearn...@arnoldarts.de wrote:
alex stone wrote:
Just on a more serious note, amidst all this mayhem and frivolity, we
forked a project recently to more specifically add and modify a set of
tools for a defined purpose.
Unlike this trainwreck, we not only tried our best to do so in a
decent way, but the original author was
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 Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0400, alex stone wrote:
Neither have I. If Fons sets out to insult me, he does so with the
thoroughly literate grace and style of an insulter with class. I'd
expect nothing less.
I'll keep you high expectations in mind :-). But I don't
remember ever having
On Tuesday, 28 July 2009 at 9:19, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
When doing the right thing causes people to almost line up against the one in
the right [...]
People don't oppose you for doing the right thing, but for being a
self-righteous pompous a** who doesn't know when to shut up while doing
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
You should be able to empathize Bob's emotions, if not you are just
(a) liar(s)!
Oops, Raymonds emotions :D ...
okay, Bob's too, but I was talking about Raymond's undertsandable emotions.
Sorry.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing
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 Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:33:19AM -0700, Robert Keller wrote:
I've tried to put my best foot forward in posting the sources as I
said I would. I spent all of last evening doing it and got it to a
level where it builds. Could someone other than you please tell me
what I should add to be
lase...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sure the majority of these people, as well as a large portion
of the general population, are easily manipulated by narcissists.
I became what psychology is defame as a borderline personality, because
I need to survive my childhood living with malignant
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 16:03 +0400, alex stone wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: alex stone compos...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Arnold Krillearn...@arnoldarts.de wrote:
. And while Fons surely has his own way of extreme reactions
I never found him to
Okay, hopefully this will be my last mail :(. You are wrong.
David Robillard wrote:
P.S. The commentators and peanut gallery really do not help either ;)
Bob Keller subscribed to the list because of what you call The
commentators and peanut gallery, please read the whole thread.
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 21:35 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Okay, hopefully this will be my last mail :(. You are wrong.
David Robillard wrote:
P.S. The commentators and peanut gallery really do not help either ;)
Bob Keller subscribed to the list because of what you call The
commentators
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 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
By blocked I meant banned. There is no separate thing as blocked
in the Yahoo! groups.
I know full well when I did it and it was last week after I was being
flamed, not last night.
By calling me a liar, you are just digging a hole for yourself.
Bob
Here is a partial screen shot from the
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
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?
I refuse to continue this ridiculous exchange. I am
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 Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0700, Robert Keller wrote:
Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how transparent this
situation is.
Out of curiosity I checked. Assuming the entire source code of the
project is contained in what you get with:
svn co
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
