Re: [LAD] Background on the Impro-Visor project

On Monday 27 July 2009 12:53:19 Robert Keller wrote:
> Dear linux-aud-dev list,
>
> Here is a little bit of history on the Impro-Visor project
> (http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~keller/jazz/improvisor/ ).
>
> It was initiated in 2005 as a learning tool for jazz musicians, not as
> FLOSS. It used an early version of jMusic, which was GPL, so it became
> GPL. jMusic is only a tiny part of the logic that is involved.

Size of GPL code included is irrelevant.

> Heretofore included with the executable, in the 'About' dialog, was an
> email address for questions, which I always thought would include
> questions about how to get the source, although it did not say that
> explicitly.

Inappropriate expectations. No license file was included in distribution,
no text to indicate GPL. GPL violation #1.

>
> In considering how to distribute and support the software, I set up a
> Yahoo! group wherein I provided downloads to the members
> (http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/impro-visor/ ). This is because I
> didn't want to reinvent various distributions wheels and saw this as an
> easy way.

A poor choice of venue. You should not limit access to a free software
application in such a way.

> The members of this group are
> generally musicians, but not computing sophisticates. Some have
> trouble figuring out how to unzip the distribution, or run a jar file,
> for example. They wouldn't know what to do with sourceForge, at least
> as it was back then. So I figured that posting directly source in the
> group itself would just create confusion. The only official
> distribution of Impro-Visor has been through this group.

These are excuses. Not buying it. A bunch of rubbish. Assuming
your users are dumb is very impolite.

>
> A year or so ago I received an email from Raymond asking where the
> source was. I think that I provided a download for him, and eventually
> I posted the zipped source and kept it in sync with the revisions. I
> then got a suggestion or two from Raymond, which I decided not to
> accept, for reasons that I had then. Please understand that I am not a
> GPL expert, just trying to 'get along'. However, I don't feel that I
> am obligated to accept every suggestion that someone makes about
> software that is my own. I had not heard from Raymond since then (a
> year ago).

You don't have to accept every suggestion. That is fine. But my suggestions
which were actually real code were better than what you were doing. So the
refusal was quite illogical. My code was GPL, so no problem there. The
suggestions I made will make there way into the fork, then others will
wonder what the heck was Bob thinking to refuse these practical bug
fixes.

Not being a GPL expert is a very poor excuse. Who is a GPL expert?
Anybody? We are all learning as we go along. Some of us just know
more than others and are willing to help each other out. That is what
I tried to do. So people are just very uncooperative.

> Recently I posted to the impro-visor Yahoo! group a preview version of
> a new version of Impro-Visor, which included installers and launchers
> for the various java platforms (created using a trial version of
> install4j). I realized shortly after that there were some problems
> with some of the new features, so the preview was flawed. I was in a
> hurry to get my plane to a conference where I was presenting work
> involving Impro-Visor. I did not want to post source to a flawed
> version.

Again, irrelevant. Excuses, excuses. All over the place. Stick to
the license, then there is no problem.

> However, the GPL as I understand it allows one to obtain the
> source by request, rather than having it posted side-by-side. I did
> not have net access for several days, which were reserved for a short
> vacation with my spouse. When I did get access, it was rather limited
> and I could only use gmail. I received a message from Raymond asking
> why the source was not posted. I indicated that did not really have
> time to do a proper posting of the source. For example, I understand
> that I am supposed to provide a compilation script, but I did not know
> enough about configuring ant to include build.xml which would include
> it in the zip. I still have to address that issue. So upon receiving
> Raymond's message, I immediately removed all of the distributions so
> there would not be further cause for complaint. The preview was thus
> up for 3-4 days. This was followed by additional messages from Raymond
> accusing me of intentional violations and making attacks on my
> personality.

This contains some lies. The first message I received from Bob had
an insulting tone to it, as if I was doing something wrong by asking for the
source. Nice attempt at back-paddling. Rubbish, throughout.

>
> Meanwhile, the activities of Raymond Martin, trying to force my hand
> on how I distribute the sources, are very counterproductive. By making
> me 'put out fires', it is taking away hours that could be used to
> produce a proper initial repository. 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).

I doubt this very seriously. I have had dealing with SF for another project
that I forked, under the GPL. Nothing ever happened and my project is going
strong. SF has not contacted me, taken the files down, deleted the project,
or anything else, because they probably won't. The other project I forked
on SF tried to get me to change the name of my project, I refused and
nothing happened. So you see Bob, been there before. That is why I
know I am in the right.

The other project also tried getting a trademark. Still nothing. My project
persists.

SF takes violations very seriously. They would have contacted me by now if
there was any truth to these allegations.

You are making yourself more incredulous the more you write.

Hey, everybody. Go to Improvisor on SF and see if it is still there
along with the files: http://sf.net/projects/improvisor

Talk is cheap, results count.

>
> I really am trying to be a good citizen, and you'll have to excuse me
> for not knowing the ways of your community, which was not the primary
> one intended to be served by this project. While I am quite willing to
> cooperate, I feel that I am being asked to react too quickly. As I
> told Raymond, I need a little space here. As you can see from the tone
> of his messages, he thinks I have to do what I say, immediately, or he
> takes over. It kind of feels like a lynch mob, which I don't feel I
> deserve, because a lot of the thinking that went into the project is
> that of me and my students. I also don't feel that I should have to
> disrupt my vacation and conference in Europe to address his whims.

It was almost a year since I first started interacting with Bob. Apparently
that is just way too fast for anything to happen.

> The project will require TLC to maintain, even by someone knowledgable
> of its structure, because it contains a lot of music theory. By
> forcing things in Raymond's way, progress is being prevented.

How would you know that? Do you know me? Do you know that I have
a degree in applied physics and computer science or that I have been
a musician for over 30 years. Of course not. So how could you ever
begin to postulate the possible trajectory that might evolve by my involvement
in the manner I choose. Very insulting fellow, aren't you.

> I can assure you that I and my students have expended an extraordinary
> amount (100's of person-months) of effort in just making this project
> work. Please be fair to us.

If you want respect, give respect. Stop assuming you are somehow in a better
position. It is very condescending. But then again I have encountered this
behavior before in university from professors. It really reflects very badly
on a great profession, be it science or music.

Raymond
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Jul 28 00:15:01 2009