On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > bradley newton haug wrote: > > attempting to subvert the intentions of the authors (who are present > > on this list) is deplorable. > He isn't subverting anything. Open source code licensed under the GPL > guarantees Mark's (and your) freedom to work with the code as either of > you see fit. > > The GPL does not address the intentions of the authors. Specifically it > address the rights of users, of which Mark is one. He is entitled to do > what he likes with the source code, so long as he abides by the letter > of its license, as are we all. > > You know, for all the bullcrap that's been spewed on this matter, has > anyone ever submitted the case to the FSF for their judgment on it ? It > seems to me that their opinion would seal the issue once and for all. > > Best, > > dp > Thanks Dave. I applaud everyone for their comments on this subject. Personally I feel that using GPL code for any reason allowed within GPL is certainly not a deplorable action. We do it every day with lots of GPL programs. At the time this package of code was written it is my understanding that this was a GPL project. That what the license seems to say and that's all I work on. I am still the only non-developer I know of who is specifically listed on the LS site as a contributor. Over the years I've certainly been one of the 'spew-iees' Dave is speaking of, fairly enough, because I put in huge amounts of efforts on the project only to have the rug pulled out from underneath me with no discussion. The GPL doesn't protect my 'interests' as a tester/contributor bucause my name isn't listed in the code header. In fact the license was changed and I continued working on the project because the developers didn't even announce they'd made the change. I'm not personally sure what the FSF could really do for us on this subject but I'd be interested in knowing. Whatever the reasons were that the authors changed the license they have refused to talk about them in public. I don't think that taking the code non-GPL is really 'wrong', per se, but possibly the FSF would tell them they have to use a non-GPL license that they write instead of stealing the GPL and modifying it? (Heck, I think the idea of the GPL itself was that you don't change it, right? If anyone can change it then the idea of feeding code back into the program falls apart/) Anyway, GPL programs fork all the time. I'm not trying to 'subvert' anything. The 'story' was that they were 'contacted' by someone and decide to go that direction for reasons never made public. That's their business. I *think* people have asked a few times over the last few years if anyone had some GPL code. I found it today. I'll provide it as long as the stated intention is for use in a GPL project. I *think* that's for the good of people using GPL software. Nothing more. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
