Re: [LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond

On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote:

> On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20 laseray@email-addr-hidden 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 if a user
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> to distribute it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL
>>>>>> violation on Prof. Keller's part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no
>>>>> license
>>>>> file in it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
>>>
>>> so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
>>> But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating
>>> and not
>>> Keller.
>>
>> This was not the point though. Just pointing out that a user/
>> developer
>> could inadvertently start distributing packages that do violate. As
>> far
>> as I am concerned, a little bit more diligence should be directed
>> to these
>> kinds of issues before distribution takes place. In the Impro-Visor 4
>> source package I distribute (on Improvisor at SF) I have fixed this
>> so that
>> it won't happen.
>>
>> On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the
>> copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I
>> have the
>> 2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have
>> copyrights
>> indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39
>> headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his
>> educational institution. What is the situation with that?
>>
>> Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the
>> institution or
>> this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their
>> respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see
>> everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights
>> indicated.
>> Some clarification would be helpful.
>
> Bob Keller has to comment on that for the precise situation, but it
> may well
> be that student's work in his institution, are copyrighted by the
> institution.
>
> sincerely,
> Marije

We employ the students, so we own the copyright.

Bob

Robert Keller
Csilla & Walt Foley Professor
Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Aug 2 04:15:04 2009