[LAU] [Fwd: Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus)]

From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@email-addr-hidden-dsl.net>
Date: Sat Sep 21 2013 - 13:00:08 EEST

I want to chime in a last time. See the forwarded message.

Please, talk to "mgavioli" and try to find a consensus.

I've got the impression that this is possible.

It's completely irrelevant what opinions we have got. _Neither anybodies
opinion, nor mine is relevant and nothing more I wanted to say_! As so
often: English isn't my native language, my English is completely
broken.

Is this understandable(?):

"mgavioli" claims something and a presumption of innocence is good
etiquette too. Isn't it? Or is it common sense to think the most worse
first?

Have a nice weekend!
Ralf

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
Subject: Re: [LAD] forking (was Re: Aeolus)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:52:05 +0200

On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 08:52 +0000, John Rigg wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 07:52:02AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > It's completely impossible to be on Fons site. When Fons has such a
> > super-mind, why did he chose the GPL? Those simple-minded guy who forked
> > Aeolus might have made a little mistake, but doesn't offend the licence.
>
> Ralf, please stop this straw man argument about the GPL. Fons is understandably
> irritated by someone forking his project without prior discussion. It's a
> question of etiquette, not licence terms, as has been pointed out repeatedly
> in this thread.
>
> It isn't difficult to find out that Aeolus is currently maintained; all it
> takes is a look at the README in the sources, which contains release dates.
> The 2007 copyright date which I think was mentioned earlier (I'm not going to
> re-read this whole sorry thread to confirm that) is the copyright date for
> GPL 3, not Aeolus. Again, this stuff is not difficult to check.
>
> Another point: copyright and licence are separate things. It is possible to
> violate a copyright while still complying with the GPL. Adding one's own
> copyright notice to someone else's original work without making substantive
> changes to the work may be such a violation (IANAL, so that's speculation).
>
> John

Hi John,

I won't discuss this anymore, even while I've got arguments for
forgiving mistakes and finding a solution. Don't talk to me, talk to
"mgavioli" at https://github.com/mgavioli/oscAeolus/issues/1 , explain
him his mistake and see if he does offended/offences etiquette because
he's evil, or because he made a mistake and what's his opinion about the
"issue".

All those threads perhaps are completely useless, when just talking to
"mgavioli".

He made a mistake? Ok! And now? Making it a drama while it might be easy
to solve, by just talking to him? He might think he didn't made a
mistake, so he perhaps won't contact somebody, but he perhaps will reply
if Fons or you send a request.

Why all this discussion with speculations instead of talking to the
right person?

"mgavioli" claims something and a presumption of innocence is good
etiquette too. Isn't it? Or is it common sense to think the most worse
first?

Please, talk to "mgavioli" and try to find a consensus.

Regards,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sun Sep 22 00:15:02 2013

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 22 2013 - 00:15:02 EEST