User Feedback :: Usage of murgaLua by DSL

I just received information that confirms what I had posted.
That the creation of the derived work, murgalua-fltk.so.6.8 was by a simple recompliation of GPL'ed source files. None of these selected source files were modified in anyway. A final decision needs to be made with John Andrews, myself, and the developer of the derived work. Still Mr. Murga has created such ill will that it is not an attractive option to promote anything connected with him. Perhaps a total fork not depending on murga moving forward is an option to consider. We need some time for such consideration.

The preamble of the GPL is very clear about this matter:
"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things."

So long as the sources are made available (they are and I showed Mr Murga where he can order a CD) and copyrights remain intact (florian would know more about this than I) and any changes (if there actually are changes) noted, there's no problem. Well, except we have to endure someone's petulance, arrogance, and insistence that we use his code intact as he sees fit rather than using it in whole or in part as we see fit -- which is contrary to the nature of GPL. At least we only have to endure his whining until he relicenses it under a different license that affords him the kind of control he seeks. As long as it's GPL and as long as DSL is in compliance with GPL, you shouldn't feel that you have to oblige him.

EDIT: GPL provides that the bindings can be separated and used independently (bold text part above) of murgaLua. If it's determined that it's worth forking so we have Lua-FLTK bindings, this is certainly worth considering. Just make sure all the proper credit is given to Murga for the part(s) we use.

Quote

How long has DSL used murgalua? Has he complained before about absence of source? About copyright messages whether linked internally or in some external form?

That's a very good point, which now has me scratching my head.

Quote

I don't see how including them in some external form to provide him proper attribution doesn't remedy the situation.

This, as I said earlier, _may_ not be the proper interpretation of the GPL, regardless of how JM's opinion of DSL's practices may have recently changed. If the proper interpretation of "Accompany it with a written offer" should necessitate actually including the written offer in the release itself (which I think is a reasonable interpretation), then perhaps there is still a valid argument for JM's case even if it's not the original source for his gripe. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider including the notice within DSL in the future...it's only a few extra bytes.

Quote

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider including the notice within DSL in the future...it's only a few extra bytes.

Agreed. I thought the offer was made in the getting started doc. Maybe append it at the end of the license section:

Code Sample

License:
Damn Small Linux being derived from GNU/Linux, Debian, & Knoppix is also covered by the GPL v2 License. All custom code developed by John Andrews and Robert Shingledecker are therfore also covered by the same GPL v2 License. Any other software contained within, if not specifically stated would also fall under the same such license. Sources for binaries are available for $7 (to cover cost of media and shipping) from...

Etc.

Good idea. Except only sources for GPL code are required and not all binaries.

Next Page...
original here.