Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF

laseray@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:04:05 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
>
>> laseray@email-addr-hidden wrote:
>>
>>> 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 obligated to provide
>>>> source, but they are free to offer neither without violating the GPL.
>>>>
>>> Okay, it was just a quick wording, so don't misconstrue my meaning.
>>> The binaries were out, under GPL, source has to be available
>>> then in accord with the license. That is what this is about.
>>>
>> 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

>
>> You don't have to make your source available, but people who gets your
>> binaries should be able to get the source too.
>>
>
> Yes you do. Depends on how you use the license. This also was established
> previously.
>
Same #gnu
>
>> Mmhh I'd rather saw a better corporation here. I don't know who is
>> non-coorporative here though, Raymond or Bob Keller.
>>
>
> Bob. Do not equate packaging with contents. This seems to be
> the practical misunderstanding you are having.
>
>
>> Maybe it would be good to invite Bob Keller for a reasonable
>> dialogue on this list. I like to hear his opinion about corporation.
>> After such a public discussion we can decide whether there are good
>> reasons to bundle forces on _his_ project or to fork it.
>>
>> my 2 cents,
>>
>
> There you go again giving that guy the benefit of the doubt, even after
> he had a number of chances to act reasonably.
>
> In my last email to him I suggested we discuss this matter on his Yahoo
> group with others (court of public opinion), but I know he will never do that
> (which I directly mentioned to him).
>
> He will never allow free discussion of this point so that people can come to a
> consensus. As I already stated, a few people sided with him initially and then
> reversed their positions once they actually had the facts. Despite this he
> does not seem to be able to reason the whole thing out to its logical
> conclusion.
>
> In any event, I already have a project now and can do what I like in accord
> with the GPL. So there is no "we" to really decide anything. I already made
> the decision and will move forward. Others are free to do as they wish, also
> in accord with the GPL. If you want to participate on my project, fine.
> I will hook you up. If you want to make your own, also fine. Fork my stuff,
> when I put it up, I encourage it. Forks don't hurt a project they help to
> create that FOSS eco-system we are all happy to use. More versions will
> encourage better development. Do as you will and I will even help you out if
> you want to fork within my project, have separate branches of development,
> etc.
>
>
We will see how it goes. For myself I wait to see how Bob acts in the
coming time.
I'm happy though that more people seems to have interest in this project.

Regards,

\r
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Jul 26 00:15:05 2009