User Feedback :: JohnMurga



Quote
Being pragmatic here, it's generally better just to respect the wishes of the author than risk encouraging him or her to put all or part of their code under some awful license?

What's the difference between the GPL -- as it's written -- and what he's imposing on top of that? What he's offering is NOT the GPL but GPL with strings and conditions (like his name and copyright appearing when things he DIDN'T write are invoked) that aren't his to make.

edited and amended...
Quote
The problem with doing a fork is someone with the appropriate skills then has to maintain it.  Who is that going to be?

Since florian effected and compiled the changed configuration, it seems he's up to the task. If he's interested, of course.

Quote
It could (?) be that the GPL does not adequately reflect John Murga's wishes for his code.

This was a point I raised a couple times yesterday only to be met with Murga's derision and ad hominem attacks. If he wishes more control over it, he should *NOT* have chosen GPL because it is not a license that gives the developer full control over how the source is compiled or used. As long as it's GPL, we have the right -- you and I -- to compile it as *we* see fit and to redistribute it with proper attribution and availability of sources.

The only question here is whether the attributions in the recompiled sources are adequate. The solution isn't what he wants right now but what he wanted at the time he made the code available. He doesn't get to move the goalposts now. He was okay with DSL's previous use which did NOT put his name out in every invocation of the parts of the sum that constitute "murgalua." That's why I asked several times about that yesterday and again today.

Notice there was no answer to that. But plenty of BS about reading comprehension, developers being "dumb" and "molesting" and "butchering" his project.

I complained in the 4.3 (iirc) thread about the muddled verbiage that constituted his compiler "license" (if you can call it that) and asked questions about the issue of licensing because after reading his site and through his source tarball I was left with the impression he hadn't given it enough thought, or sought enough advice, to have anything more coherent than what he had in the tarball. Given his posts here and elsewhere, I now understand the source of said incoherence.

That doesn't change the fact that he chose the GPL for his bindings. Doing that gave DSL both rights and responsibilities. His allegations are that DSL isn't living up to those responsibilities. It's been demonstrated, though, that DSL didn't change any code. DSL merely didn't configure it the way he does. No different than if you're compiling vim and configure with --disable-nls and --with-gui=none. Does Bram Moolenaar call it "molesting" or "butchering" when users configure and compile to suit their needs?

I have to wonder if it's really in DSL's interests to use something which the author implies "his permission" was given or even needed when the GPL doesn't restrict use of code like that so long as the rest of the rules are followed. He cannot have it both ways. He can't offer the code under GPL and then demand absolute control over how it's compiled.

We're better off without him. If that means not using his code at all, so be it. If it means forking -- which is allowed under GPL because of situations like this -- then we should do that and use the GPL'ed parts as we see fit. If it means finding alternatives, we can do that. But we should not, as a matter of principle, exchange the freedom he explicitly gave users when he licensed under GPL for any control beyond the terms of the GPL. That means we should NOT give him credit when things he didn't even write are invoked and we should NOT have to meet new demands that weren't required when DSL "had his permission."

I know it's not my decision to make. You can see what it would be if it were. Like anyone else here, I use and support DSL because it serves my needs. I'm here because I want to help make DSL better, not to be divisive or to ruffle feathers. I'm also not here to give up any rights afforded me by particular licenses, and I don't want others giving up those rights in my interest. I respect anyone who thinks differently about the issues I've raised. But I won't be silent while others are doing things that can or will affect us in ways we won't want somewhere down the road.
my big rub was John's public method of voicing his displeasure, not that there might actually be an issue. I honestly didn't know for sure as I said before.

I completely understand that there was a lot of emotion attached and maybe even some misunderstanding or different interpretations in regards to the GPL.

In the end, I just wanted John M and John/RS to have a dialog before things got out of hand. I am always going to defend DSL as I know the hard work and struggle that have gone on to develop (RS) and dev/market (JA). While I may not always agree with things, I respect what they are trying to do. Trying to please people, market a project and continue to be innovative is a ton of work and requires tons of passion for what you do. In that respect I give kudos to all three.

I hope now we have a resolution that is satisfactory to all parties involved and we can move forward with the next steps of DSL.

lucky13, I'm sure you have some valid points in your arguments. In this case, I think we just let these 3 work it out and respect whatever decisions they come up with.

Whew, after this, I believe I'll take kuky up on his continual offer of beers.  :;):

Chris
Quote
Trying to please people, market a project and continue to be innovative is a ton of work and requires tons of passion for what you do.

Agreed. I'm not trying to make any decisions because I know they're not mine to make, but I don't mind trying to influence if I can.

Beers to Chris.
Quote (lucky13 @ June 19 2008,12:59)
That doesn't change the fact that he chose the GPL for his bindings. Doing that gave DSL both rights and responsibilities. His allegations are that DSL isn't living up to those responsibilities. It's been demonstrated, though, that DSL didn't change any code. DSL merely didn't configure it the way he does. No different than if you're compiling vim and configure with --disable-nls and --with-gui=none. Does Bram Moolenaar call it "molesting" or "butchering" when users configure and compile to suit their needs?

Following this thread with some amusement at the emotions expressed by some, I have (for the first time I admit) looked the the GPL in detail. Looking at V2 & with reference to the perceived problem here - not a change in the code, but a change in the configuration - GPL 2.0 states:

Quote
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable


and GPL 3 states:
Quote
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.


From this it appears that the configuration scripts are relevant to the Licence & thus changes to them are grounds for complaint. Even in GPL3 it is only if the libraries are unmodified that they are not included. (I'll not go into the issue of whether JohnM requested copies of the code & configuration as used by DSL). From this it appears the initial complaint is valid, but I do think it could have been better handled, without the need for the flame war we have all seen. This has done no-one any good & no doubt raised a few blood-pressure (possibly lowered a few in those of us having a smile at others getting so worked up about things!)
I'm in agreement with WDef here. Diplomacy requires a certain amount of compromise, and is generally not dictated entirely by the word of law.  If that were so, every disputed decision we made would be determined by either war or litigation, neither of which is ideal.

The DSL developers *could* continue the current path, and they might very well have legal rights to do so, but it would mean being "right" but losing the support of a very talented individual and potentially hostility from others associated with him.  Why should that be acceptible, even if it might be ultimately deemed legal, when a much better solution would be to come to a civil agreement between the people directly involved?
Next Page...
original here.