User Feedback :: Usage of murgaLua by DSL



http://www.murga-projects.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=324
I'm asking this for my own curiosity.

Are you more upset that someone had changed your GPL'ed code to suit their *own* needs or that the sources, copyright notices, etc., need to be made available per the terms of the GPL?

If it's the latter, have you tried to deal with this behind the scenes to get that taken care of? Have you ordered a set of DSL sources yet to see if the latest sources are included? The notice for sources is both on the CD and in the download directory. Will you be satisfied with the inclusion of appropriate copyright notices? And if you've been as familiar with DSL and DSL's use of your bindings as you suggest, why is it just now an issue that sources/copyrights have heretofore not been included?

If it's just the former, what's the problem? The GPL allows people to see the code, change the code, use the code, redistribute the code (per the terms of the GPL). If you don't want anyone using your project to suit their own needs, you need to change your license to something a bit more proprietary that will yield you the kind of control it appears you want (e.g., things you won't "support or condone here or elsewhere").

edited some grammar :-)
To Jhon Murga

The members of the community DSL  is a good people and soon will done  explanations of what has been done, rectifying what was done badly and asking for excuses if it is the case...

when jaazp finish his exams we send to you some beers of our ciberbrewery project...

beers to Jhon Murga and have a happy day (no sad)
Piggybacking what I wrote above...
Quote
Either way I am unhappy with MY CODE being used in this way (if that counts for anything).

No, your feelings really don't count for anything. You want a discussion of the merits of GPL? Fine. What part of the four freedoms do you not comprehend?
Quote
   *  The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
   * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
   * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
   * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Maybe you don't understand the last one so let me repeat it:
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
That goes hand in hand with what's stated in the first freedom about"adapt it to your needs."

YOUR needs, not John Murga's. Your runtime is nice, but it's bloated. It's a bit more than most people require at any given time -- I don't need sqlite and luafs or FLTK just to run a quick and dirty lua script. The refactoring allows DSL users to use each part as needed.

That leaves the issue of availability of sources. Have you ordered a copy of the sources used in the refactored version to insure those are available per your use of GPL for them? If you haven't, how do you know if DSL is complying with GPL or not?
lucky13, you really should go over this :

http://www.marin.cc.ca.us/~don/study/7read.html

My project has (had) a very specific focus and context,
which I have always made clear ... And DSL is a project
I have gone out of my to support.

But either way, if you read this :

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

And assuming you are able to understand it, you'll
find that my code has been included illegally into DSL
starting at version 4.4 (several reasons which cannot
be fixed by ordering the sources).

A spirit of openness and cooperation is also what was
missing here, and something you also seem unable to
grasp unfortunately.

I really do hope your mean spirited and ignorant
response is not representative of the DSL community
at large as I do have better things to do than deal
with people like that ...

Either way, any further code I WRITE will not be so
easy for people like to miss-appropriate.

Cheers
JohnM
Next Page...
original here.