[email protected] wrote: > On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:04:05 Grammostola Rosea wrote: > >> [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
