Recalled
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jhansonxi Jun 20, 2008 11:31 AM EDT |
Due to a disagreement with John Murga (http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?;act=...) over attribution of a derivative of murgaLua it's been pulled: http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?;act=... |
| tuxchick Jun 20, 2008 11:53 AM EDT |
Yuck, what a tangle. A bit of a summary would have been helpful, jhansonxi. I don't feel like wading through every post to figure out what the problem is, but it sounds like John Murga wants some kind of attribution, but murgalua is GPL and there is no such requirement, nor does the GPL allow additional conditions. It sounds like Mr. Murga wants to retain control of how his code is used, which makes me wonder why he chose to license it under the GPL. |
| jezuch Jun 20, 2008 1:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:It sounds like Mr. Murga wants to retain control of how his code is used Is he European? Maybe he want his "moral rights" back? |
| dumper4311 Jun 20, 2008 3:17 PM EDT |
@tuxchick:
>"It sounds like Mr. Murga wants to retain control of how his code is used, which makes me wonder why he chose to license it under the GPL." Dang, that sounds like the rationale for most every argument I've ever heard you make in the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 debate. As jezuch expounded - something about "moral rights". Not to hijack the thread or anything, just something funny about the pot - kettle aspect that forced me to rattle your cage a bit. :) I know, I'm a poopyhead. |
| gus3 Jun 20, 2008 8:19 PM EDT |
I thought one of the points of GPLv2 was that the author retains the copyright on what he/she writes, and distribution must still be according to GPLv2? If so, then stripping attribution would be a major violation of that copyright. |
| tuxchick Jun 20, 2008 9:15 PM EDT |
I read some more, and it seems Mr. Murga is having a bad life: http://www.murga-projects.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=324 Quoting: murgaLua was devised as a standalone environment that could remain consistent across many platforms, and I feel that breaking up its parts into libraries would harm this consistency. A wearyingly long thread in which Mr. Murga refuses to divulge what the alleged GPL violations are. Apparently he made no attempt to contact the DSL developers, but launched a public campaign against them, even threatening legal action: http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?act=S... Though eventually he does sort of nail down some specifics: http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?act=S... Quoting: murgaLua itself exposes no bindings, it is an interactive command-line program, in order to have my FLTK code function as a binding they had to modify (extract the relevant code and repackage), thus removing the interactive component - An intrinsic part of murgaLua which when run in it's most basic form displays the appropriate attributions and copyright messages. So he's objecting to it being modified and changing it so that it no longer "displays the appropriate attributions and copyright messages." I don't know if they were completely removed, but in any case that's easily remedied. They don't need some kind of fancy in-your-face display, just included. His real peeve seems to be anyone making any changes at all. As the entire work is GPL2, it seems a poor licensing choice. |
| azerthoth Jun 20, 2008 9:19 PM EDT |
*removed* ~Az |
| thenixedreport Jun 20, 2008 9:44 PM EDT |
From what I understand, they removed the attributions and copyright messages from the coding itself. In other words, the developers of DSL appear to have made a mistake (we're human...it happens). I'm sure you'd understand if you were working on a project only for parts of it to be taken without any attribution towards you. Murga supported DSL for quite some time if my understanding of things is correct. Then this happens... how is supposed to feel? Btw, the GPL 2 does have something about interactive methods etc.... If one developer does it, you too have to have the thing function the same way (in other words, displaying attribution etc...). |
| tuxchick Jun 21, 2008 7:22 AM EDT |
The DSL devs didn't do it; they used third-generation modified murgaLua code. The interactive bit is interesting and gets to a rather esoteric part of the dispute. John Murga doesn't want murgaLua chopped into separate libraries, though I don't see how he can legally prevent that. GPL2 states Quoting: If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) But the modified bits that DSL used were converted into libraries, because murgaLua as a whole is too big and bloaty for what they wanted to do. So it would seem this clause does not apply. It seems unlikely this is the first time this has ever happened, there must be precedents. |
| thenixedreport Jun 21, 2008 1:02 PM EDT |
So TC... do you think one should send an inquiry to the FSF about this? It might help clear things up in the future. |
| tuxchick Jun 21, 2008 5:42 PM EDT |
thenixedreport, it might be interesting as a general inquiry. It seems the GPL covers this pretty clearly already (yes you can turn an interactive framework into a simple, stripped-down library), but we know how miry legal issues can get. |
| thenixedreport Jun 21, 2008 8:30 PM EDT |
I may do that tomorrow then. It might be a good idea to clear things up. |
| lucky13 Jun 24, 2008 12:32 PM EDT |
Found this discussion courtesy of Mr Murga's forums. Just want to say a few things now that the dust has settled. First, the two (un)"offending" releases were pulled. Another version, 4.4.2, has been released with the changes the two sides agreed to. Even though there was no obligation to cover Murga's butt, DSL added copyright information where Murga either didn't or hadn't considered placing it before any of this happened. Second, many of the posts here are correct that this was mostly about a developer who obviously chose a license that doesn't give him as many rights to restrict what users do as he intended. Not only did he not consider that the GPL allows users to configure and compile as *they* see fit and to use GPL'ed code in whole or in part in other things so long as they follow the conditions (which DSL does), he had no "back up plan" for displaying whatever copyright messages he desired to appear if users chose to separate the libraries so the massive runtime didn't have to load just to run a basic lua script. DSL agreed to do this for him after the fact. In the end, he even asked his copyright to be displayed when code was executed independently of his own bindings. DSL could not concede to displaying a copyright for him if lua or FLTK ran without any invocation of murgalua bindings. I know I personally rubbed Mr Murga (whose feelings were already hurt) and others the wrong way, but the overriding principle in all of this was the GPL and what it means for both users and developers. I could not get him to address the issues of what were his terms before the bindings were separated and what it would take to clear things up. He only wanted to fight and make irrational demands not afforded under GPL. The developer's rights were not violated in any way -- not one line of code was changed as he'd originally asserted, it was all in the manner in which it was re-compiled to suit DSL users' needs. Murga wanted to restrict how his project was used despite his choice of GPL and he was very clear in posts to his own forums that he would reconsider the licensing because he wanted more control over how users run his bindings. I wrote that I would defend his rights to restrict users insofar as the various licenses in his runtime allow but I wouldn't let him tyrannize any project so long as it was GPL because he gives up that right when he uses that license. Today it's DSL, who will he pull this on next time? The GPL is the antithesis of what he seems to want for murgalua. The GPL is very clear and doesn't exist to keep feelings from getting hurt -- it respects users' freedoms and protects developers' rights. GPL doesn't have or allow for "strings." Yet that's what Murga wanted and insisted upon. He objected publicly and with unfounded allegations when users exercised the rights the license affords them. Accordingly, anyone using his code needs to assess whether his terms and his conditions and his demands are worth the concessions for whatever utility they get from it. Finally and since the issue has been raised here, I'd asked behind the scenes for DSL's developers to consult with SFLC on this matter because it would be interesting to see if they'd stand up for users the same way they do when developer rights under GPL are under assault. I don't know if that happened or will, and it's not my call to make. I'm not even a GPL fan but here I am defending it. If anyone contacts FSF or SFLC about the matter, please let me know what you learn or please share it at the DSL forums. :-) |
| thenixedreport Jun 24, 2008 1:07 PM EDT |
@lucky13, Understood. I should have asked beforehand.... I will today. |
| thenixedreport Jun 24, 2008 1:53 PM EDT |
Ok, e-mail sent... @lucky13, You stated you found this discussion courtesy of Murga's forums. Which one? He has one for Puppy users and one for his own projects. Also, was a direct link supplied by him or no? Just curious. |
| lucky13 Jun 24, 2008 2:36 PM EDT |
@thenixedreport
Thanks for inquiring with FSF or whomever. Murga mentioned LXer here. http://www.murga-projects.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=326&p... His one-sided view/rehash is presented there. It's funny that he thinks I vilified him or that I'm Robert (main developer). To me it was *only* about the license and whether his allegations were true (no, and I knew they weren't). I don't care about his feelings and I'm not keen to use anything that's tainted with terms or conditions beyond those stated in the relevant license. That's why I warned, and will continue to warn, others about using murgalua -- its developer offers it under a license but will throw a fit if you use your freedoms under it. FWIW, I'd addressed the nebulous quality of his "compiler license" previously in the DSL forums in the context of and contemporaneously with the compile-time changes that were made to suit DSL's needs and how those changes would affect the licenses of the underlying components of the murgalua runtime. |
| tuxchick Jun 24, 2008 2:53 PM EDT |
Dang, he's working overtime to nurse that giant peeve he's gone and welded to himself. Ever notice how his own forum threads are closed? |
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 24, 2008 3:16 PM EDT |
That's because it is much easier to handle dissenting opinions if you can't hear them Carla. LOL!! |
| tuxchick Jun 24, 2008 3:48 PM EDT |
Heh, good point Scott :) |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2008 6:25 PM EDT |
> That's because it is much easier to handle dissenting opinions if you can't hear them Carla. Which brings to mind that it's time to thank Scott and company once again for running one fo the best open discussion fora available. Just in case I don't mention it often enough, you all do a great job. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2008 6:44 PM EDT |
And yes, this is like watching a train wreck in progress. Well, he's probably got his wish. I doubt any major GPL'ed project will touch his code again. In the meantime, he's free to change the license to something more to his liking. Sigh, why people have so much trouble understanding the GPL is really beyond me. Yes, the details can get complicated sometimes, but the issues people seem to have so much trouble with are really pretty simple (the two big ones seem to availability of the source and reuse/modification of the code). |
| JohnMurga Jun 25, 2008 6:25 AM EDT |
Hi, @tuxchick > I read some more, and it seems Mr. Murga is having a bad life Only when dealing with certain people :-) >The DSL devs didn't do it; they used third-generation modified murgaLua code. Not true, the DSL community modified code obtained directly from testing snapshots at my members dev forum. > The interactive bit is interesting and gets to a rather esoteric part of the dispute. According to my legal advice there are precedents ... As much as people don't want to accept this fact both claims where checked are are valid. > Ever notice how his own forum threads are closed? This is funny, the threads over at the DSL forum where debates and those where closed so that RobertS could have the last word and kill the debate. The threads that you refer to are information pieces posted by myself purely to keep my users informed. There is a thread on my forum open to discuss this issue, and you are welcome to see what's in there. It is funny that you guys work so hard to paint this picture of me ... Be my guest. People can check the threads in question and see for themselves. Cheers JohnM PS : As for lucky13, who has nothing better to do than post everywhere about me ... Well, I guess I am happy I gave his life some meaning. |
| jdixon Jun 25, 2008 7:17 AM EDT |
> Not true, the DSL community modified code obtained directly from testing snapshots at my members dev forum. I assume you gave them access to the forum, in which case they had a right to access the code. i also assume the code was licensed under the GPL, in which case they had a right to modify it. > According to my legal advice there are precedents ... As much as people don't want to accept this fact both claims where checked are are valid. I'm sure they do. There are precedents for a lot of things. I'm sure there are also lawyers who will disagree. Regardless, you've made your wishes known and I believe the DSL people are honoring those wishes at this point, are they not? Good luck with your work on the code, and I hope you find a license more to your liking than the GPL. |
| tuxchick Jun 25, 2008 8:39 AM EDT |
RobertS of DSL said: http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?act=S... Quoting: What is included in DSL was obtained from another website that created this derived work and not from site murga. That fact would be known if the thread I suggested to read was actually read. Mr. Murga, you painted your own picture, and very publicly. I don't know why you're worried about other people's reading comprehension- we comprehend perfectly. |
| lucky13 Jun 25, 2008 9:09 AM EDT |
Hi Johnny. > 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. |
| thenixedreport Jun 25, 2008 3:05 PM EDT |
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. |
| JohnMurga Jun 25, 2008 10:30 PM EDT |
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. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 26, 2008 6:27 AM EDT |
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. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2008 7:28 AM EDT |
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. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 26, 2008 7:59 AM EDT |
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 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 |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2008 8:02 AM EDT |
>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. |
| jdixon Jun 26, 2008 8:44 AM EDT |
> I did not enter the fray. He has a point TxtEdMacs. Dino has stayed out of this fiasco so far. |
| dumper4311 Jun 26, 2008 10:01 AM EDT |
>"Dino has stayed out of this fiasco so far." Knowing his strong tendency towards debate, this really should be recognized as a herculean effort. :) |
| jdixon Jun 26, 2008 10:04 AM EDT |
> Knowing his strong tendency towards debate... To be fair, he's not the only one. *Checks to see if there are any mirrors nearby.* |
| dumper4311 Jun 26, 2008 10:27 AM EDT |
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. :) |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 26, 2008 10:59 AM EDT |
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? |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2008 11:08 AM EDT |
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. |
| tuxchick Jun 26, 2008 11:23 AM EDT |
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.... |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2008 11:27 AM EDT |
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. |
| tuxchick Jun 26, 2008 11:35 AM EDT |
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. |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2008 11:38 AM EDT |
TC - Good deal. Puppies are good at that. And cute, too. |
| lucky13 Jun 26, 2008 11:45 AM EDT |
@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. :-) |
| dinotrac Jun 26, 2008 11:57 AM EDT |
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. |
| lucky13 Jun 26, 2008 12:01 PM EDT |
@dino - Gotcha. I'd rather talk about puppies, too. ;-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!