- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Damn Small Linux 4.4 Review
|
|
|
Comments (44)
24 earlier comments in the full thread.
Okay, enough! Both of you! If you guys want to fight, take it somewhere else. This is reminding me a bit too much of what happened concerning another individual and how they were followed from place to place. This is not doing anybody any good. Let us wait and see how the FSF responds to my inquiry if at all.
I have lied about nothing ...
Having the inclination to shout loudest and throw things may serve you well in a mob, but nowhere else.
DSL withdrew the code because they had to, and I did several things that went against how people believe "it should" be ... But in line with the letter of the law, and in response to actions that disgust(ed) me. And the only way some can come to terms with this is to vilify me ... :-)
So be it, it is more a reflection on them than it is on me.
Having the inclination to shout loudest and throw things may serve you well in a mob, but nowhere else.
DSL withdrew the code because they had to, and I did several things that went against how people believe "it should" be ... But in line with the letter of the law, and in response to actions that disgust(ed) me. And the only way some can come to terms with this is to vilify me ... :-)
So be it, it is more a reflection on them than it is on me.
JM,
You protest too much. There was more than sufficient time between your post for your being able to comprehend the substance in the last post from the ...nixed-report. You sound like a lawyer trying to get their message across while expecting an unfavorable ruling. The FSF should be neutral enough party to either support your assertions or to say they were bogus. What more do you need?
This is not your forum or site; lucky(...) has kept quite. Why don't you do the same?
TxtEdMacs
I am not an editor on LXer, but I was one in days past. Therefore, I know how to play one ... or was that my line on the commercial I am doing? Kinda confusing dealing with so much b.s. Oh well.
You protest too much. There was more than sufficient time between your post for your being able to comprehend the substance in the last post from the ...nixed-report. You sound like a lawyer trying to get their message across while expecting an unfavorable ruling. The FSF should be neutral enough party to either support your assertions or to say they were bogus. What more do you need?
This is not your forum or site; lucky(...) has kept quite. Why don't you do the same?
TxtEdMacs
I am not an editor on LXer, but I was one in days past. Therefore, I know how to play one ... or was that my line on the commercial I am doing? Kinda confusing dealing with so much b.s. Oh well.
TxtEdMacs -
While I believe that Murga made a mistake in choosing the GPL, I should point out that the FSF is not authoritative on it's legalities.
The FSF is the progenitor of the license and is authoritative on what it believes the legalities to be, but that's not quite the same thing.
While I believe that Murga made a mistake in choosing the GPL, I should point out that the FSF is not authoritative on it's legalities.
The FSF is the progenitor of the license and is authoritative on what it believes the legalities to be, but that's not quite the same thing.
Dino,
Maybe not, however, his tone and m.o. is lawyering PR. It has become all noise where the the facts are lost by assertions. Simply time to stop here.
They can feel free to carry out the brawl elsewhere if that suits them, because
My wish is to see this thread retained, I know you like fights but this one has played itself out. Please do not force it as a matter of principle into oblivion.
Enough, please
TxtEdMacs
Maybe not, however, his tone and m.o. is lawyering PR. It has become all noise where the the facts are lost by assertions. Simply time to stop here.
They can feel free to carry out the brawl elsewhere if that suits them, because
Quoting: ... inclination to shout loudest and throw things ...is a non-enlightening.
My wish is to see this thread retained, I know you like fights but this one has played itself out. Please do not force it as a matter of principle into oblivion.
Enough, please
TxtEdMacs
>Enough, please
Excuse me, but you might do well to review the facts.
I did not enter the fray.
You wrote something that was not quite right in a factual sense. I corrected it without reference to any specific dispute.
Excuse me, but you might do well to review the facts.
I did not enter the fray.
You wrote something that was not quite right in a factual sense. I corrected it without reference to any specific dispute.
> I did not enter the fray.
He has a point TxtEdMacs. Dino has stayed out of this fiasco so far.
He has a point TxtEdMacs. Dino has stayed out of this fiasco so far.
>"Dino has stayed out of this fiasco so far."
Knowing his strong tendency towards debate, this really should be recognized as a herculean effort. :)
Knowing his strong tendency towards debate, this really should be recognized as a herculean effort. :)
> Knowing his strong tendency towards debate...
To be fair, he's not the only one. *Checks to see if there are any mirrors nearby.*
To be fair, he's not the only one. *Checks to see if there are any mirrors nearby.*
I should have expounded a bit in my last comment. The ability to intelligently debate a subject, rather than emotionally plow through it, is an admirable trait. Something dino and various other members of this forum (generally) are pretty good at. That's why I like hanging out here.
So I hadn't intended to be offensive (at least not this time), quite the contrary in fact. I enjoy a good argument every bit as much as the next guy, so long as it doesn't devolve into emotional tirades or blind rationalization. Yes, I do understand the irony, having been guilty of a few less than productive discussions myself. :)
So I hadn't intended to be offensive (at least not this time), quite the contrary in fact. I enjoy a good argument every bit as much as the next guy, so long as it doesn't devolve into emotional tirades or blind rationalization. Yes, I do understand the irony, having been guilty of a few less than productive discussions myself. :)
None original message was directed at anyone other than the principle parties. My response to Dino was to let it cool down. Whatever the legalities, we are seeing only invective from the principals now. Let this simply die, at least temporarily, until a more objective view can be seen. Ok?
dumper -
No offense taken. Chuckle given.
FWIW -
I've been doing this kind of thing so long that nothing bugs me very much for very long. Thick skin and callouses. The worst thing you could ever do to me is to hold back a well-intended (even if critical or seemingly unfriendly) comment for fear of offense. Just ain't the way good interplay works.
No offense taken. Chuckle given.
FWIW -
I've been doing this kind of thing so long that nothing bugs me very much for very long. Thick skin and callouses. The worst thing you could ever do to me is to hold back a well-intended (even if critical or seemingly unfriendly) comment for fear of offense. Just ain't the way good interplay works.
Why dino, that sounds to me like an invitation to test the thickness of your hide! Now where did I put my golf cleats...gotta be here somewhere...maybe some soccer shoes? Nah, not sharp enough....
TC -
Golf cleats?
Hold on there!!!
Anybody who plays golf has ample reason to be angry at life.
Damage potential too high.
Must run. Wait -- too fat!!
Will call on German Shepherd for protection. Cr@p. Stupid puppy. He's 5 1/2 months old now, and big enough to make an impression --- but he loves everybody. Too obviously sweet to be much help.
I brace.
Golf cleats?
Hold on there!!!
Anybody who plays golf has ample reason to be angry at life.
Damage potential too high.
Must run. Wait -- too fat!!
Will call on German Shepherd for protection. Cr@p. Stupid puppy. He's 5 1/2 months old now, and big enough to make an impression --- but he loves everybody. Too obviously sweet to be much help.
I brace.
You're safe, dino, I ran out of breath bending over to tie my shoes. Your puppy and my puppy can do the running for both of us.
TC -
Good deal. Puppies are good at that. And cute, too.
Good deal. Puppies are good at that. And cute, too.
@dino re: 'legalities'
Suppose a developer posts a link to a tarball in a public forum. He has in the tarball a file called README that says:
(start) murgaLua Version 0.6.4 Copyright (C) 2006-8 John Murga
See file “LICENSE” for restrictions.
Notes =====
Building murgaLua ---– Several scripts can be found under “tools/misc”, that are used when doing full builds of murgaLua for the different platforms. Cheers JohnM (end)
Upon opening the file LICENSE, you see that it's the standard copy of the GPL version 2 from the FSF. Nothing more, nothing less.
Would you consider the legalities to thereby be controlled by the four freedoms of the GPL (along with the incumbent responsibilities to make the sources available)? And does the part of the GPL which allows the user to modify the code and/or recompile it to suit his or her own needs pertain if the developer's "restrictions" are limited to said copy of GPL?
If the developer has no other place where he requires copyright attribution whether compilation follows his method or one of the user's own choosing, is the user obligated to go beyond the "restrictions"/LICENSE the developer chose?
Source tarball is posted for forthcoming but yet unreleased 2.6 DSL project. http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/damnsmall/...
And just to clarify something for someone who still doesn't get it... DSL did not withdraw 4.4 (which I still use, heh) and 4.4.1 because of any violation but because it was hoped an agreement could be reached with the developer despite (a) the README file, (b) the LICENSE file, and (c) the absence of anything that would display -- or otherwise require -- the developer's name every time something was invoked. Not one line of murgalua code was changed in DSL versions pre-4.4 and 4.4.1 (edit: and no code in either of those versions was touched -- just recompiled so it was usable for DSL). The only changes to code were in 4.4.2 to *add* copyright attributions the developer previously did not have. That's not *DSL*'s mistake, it only demonstrates their forbearance and goodwill. Lot of good it's done them, huh. :-)
Suppose a developer posts a link to a tarball in a public forum. He has in the tarball a file called README that says:
(start) murgaLua Version 0.6.4 Copyright (C) 2006-8 John Murga
See file “LICENSE” for restrictions.
Notes =====
Building murgaLua ---– Several scripts can be found under “tools/misc”, that are used when doing full builds of murgaLua for the different platforms. Cheers JohnM (end)
Upon opening the file LICENSE, you see that it's the standard copy of the GPL version 2 from the FSF. Nothing more, nothing less.
Would you consider the legalities to thereby be controlled by the four freedoms of the GPL (along with the incumbent responsibilities to make the sources available)? And does the part of the GPL which allows the user to modify the code and/or recompile it to suit his or her own needs pertain if the developer's "restrictions" are limited to said copy of GPL?
If the developer has no other place where he requires copyright attribution whether compilation follows his method or one of the user's own choosing, is the user obligated to go beyond the "restrictions"/LICENSE the developer chose?
Source tarball is posted for forthcoming but yet unreleased 2.6 DSL project. http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/damnsmall/...
And just to clarify something for someone who still doesn't get it... DSL did not withdraw 4.4 (which I still use, heh) and 4.4.1 because of any violation but because it was hoped an agreement could be reached with the developer despite (a) the README file, (b) the LICENSE file, and (c) the absence of anything that would display -- or otherwise require -- the developer's name every time something was invoked. Not one line of murgalua code was changed in DSL versions pre-4.4 and 4.4.1 (edit: and no code in either of those versions was touched -- just recompiled so it was usable for DSL). The only changes to code were in 4.4.2 to *add* copyright attributions the developer previously did not have. That's not *DSL*'s mistake, it only demonstrates their forbearance and goodwill. Lot of good it's done them, huh. :-)
lucky13 -
Don't really want to get into the middle of it.
The general answer is easy, though:
It has nothing to do with 4 freedoms, free beer, or free to be me. It has everything to do with what the license says, read in light of the legal landscape that gives it power. A license relies on the ability of the licensor to restrict the rights of others, so, whatever imparts that right also also imparts constraints on the licensor.
That's why the views of the FSF wrt the GPL are pretty darned important, and might even be 100% correct, but cannot be viewed as legally authoritative. IE, you have every right to listen to your own lawyer and even to fight the issue in court, but ignore the FSF at your own peril. They know their stuff pretty darned well.
Don't really want to get into the middle of it.
The general answer is easy, though:
It has nothing to do with 4 freedoms, free beer, or free to be me. It has everything to do with what the license says, read in light of the legal landscape that gives it power. A license relies on the ability of the licensor to restrict the rights of others, so, whatever imparts that right also also imparts constraints on the licensor.
That's why the views of the FSF wrt the GPL are pretty darned important, and might even be 100% correct, but cannot be viewed as legally authoritative. IE, you have every right to listen to your own lawyer and even to fight the issue in court, but ignore the FSF at your own peril. They know their stuff pretty darned well.
@dino - Gotcha. I'd rather talk about puppies, too. ;-)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
> It is funny that you guys work so hard to paint this picture of me
You're the one holding the paint brush. Self portrait. It's not very pretty, John.
> Well, I guess I am happy I gave his life some meaning.
You don't give my life anything. You lied about: 1. changes in the code, 2. deletion of copyright attributions, 3. the intentions of everyone involved, and 4. violations of GPL.
I don't get much joy defending GPL -- I even told you I'd defend your choice to relicense under more prohibitive terms than you initially chose if the parts you use allow you to do so (and most of them do). I certainly get no joy "posting everywhere" about you; I've addressed your issues (GPL and otherwise) where you raised the issue, on my own blog (not on anyone else's), and here at LXer since you mentioned discussions about the issue here. I don't think I need to defend myself any further considering the thread YOU started at puppy about "fighting with DSL" with the first sentence "For your amusement ... " You're still whining about it after it's settled. Where's my last post about you on either my blog, here, or DSL about it? Hmmm?
You are persona non grata. I only care to the extent that code can or can't be used in DSL or by anyone else, and why. I addressed the issues regarding licenses and copyrights and asked you specifically to address what your terms were for copyright attribution wrt the bindings BEFORE this happened. Your silence about the status quo ante says everything anyone needs to know about who did what wrong. All you did about it was emote, attack others, and move the goalposts instead of accept that *you*'re the one who chose the GPL and *you*'re the one who didn't put copyright attributions anywhere so anything would appear at invocation if it were recompiled so the whole bloody bleeping mess wouldn't run just to execute small lua scripts or so the individual parts could be used independently.
That last part is why I'm grateful you chose GPL. Sometimes the developer is wrong. You certainly were in the way you chose to handle this AND how you dictated the full runtime be used your way or not at all -- conditions the GPL does NOT give you. Your way was clearly not the way DSL needed things to run and one of the users fixed your bloody mess so it would run efficiently. Licenses like the GPL exist so *users* can make things work as *they* need them to, not as developers dictate. I'm also glad the license you chose allows such code to be used in other ways without your peeking over everyone's shoulder. I'm also glad the license provides for forking the bindings so that any future use -- by DSL or ANYONE ELSE -- can be done without having to deal with *you* aside from crediting you with a modest copyright notice and release of any fork under the same license.