On Thursday 01 May 2008 21:29:22 Mark Knecht wrote: > 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/) "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." *** changing it is not allowed *** Has it been changed? I am not sure if the GPLhas any entire agreement intent such that you can't have a meta license which modifies the GPL itself rather than a dual license play. > > 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 all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
