User Feedback :: JohnMurga



Quote
From this it appears that the configuration scripts are relevant to the Licence & thus changes to them are grounds for complaint.

No, so long as those are also made available with the rest of the sources (c/h/Makefile/config* - everything necessary to recompile and install in the same manner). Robert posted the changes florian made. The sources are available and the offer is consistent with terms of the GPL. Murga simply chose to not ask for them or order them, which is germane to this whole issue -- he decided to shoot first and ask questions later.

edit...
Quote
Diplomacy requires a certain amount of compromise

Diplomacy doesn't start with claiming others violated the GPL and not having much evidence to prove it.

Quote
...it would mean being "right" but losing the support of a very talented individual and potentially hostility from others associated with him.

The hostility came from the "very talented individual." While the GPL can't protect users from his hostile associates, there are plenty of other laws that can.

Quote
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?

Because it appears DSL isn't the violator of the GPL, the author of the code in question is. He's the one who's chosen to take issue when anyone uses the bindings as they see fit (and follows the rest of the rules -- I know where he's coming from but DSL apparently didn't make any changes and the configuration has been documented). Attribution issues? Umm, what's the library called again? And what about the issue of how attribution was made before we rained on his parade? All I have seen is that he seems to want to have a bit more control than the GPL allows him. And now he also wants a lot more credit than he's due. He didn't author lua or FLTK. His name shouldn't appear anywhere simply because either is invoked in a script. Talk about conceited.

DSL should abide by the GPL. Murga should abide by the GPL.
Quote (John @ June 19 2008,20:39)
The one issue we have is in adding the murgaLua copyright notice to the command line invocation of the Lua interpreter.  The reason why is that this interpreter is LUA proper and not murgaLUA, which as you know is being used as a library in DSL along with other libraries.  However, we can  modify our .luafltkrc to print to stndout a MurgaLua copyright notice every time the murgaLua-FLTK library is invoked at the command line.  Would you find that satisfactory?

Thanks, that is a much better idea.

It looks like if we have an agreement then :)

Cheers
JohnM
Quote (lucky13 @ June 20 2008,04:17)
No, so long as those are also made available with the rest of the sources (c/h/Makefile/config* - everything necessary to recompile and install in the same manner). Robert posted the changes florian made. The sources are available and the offer is consistent with terms of the GPL. Murga simply chose to not ask for them or order them, which is germane to this whole issue -- he decided to shoot first and ask questions later.

It is like if you didn't follow any of the conversations that have been taking place ... Read the the documents that where filed, and see what the simple solutions are.

The sources (other than those already distributed by DSL), where irrelevant to the issue at hand ... Mis-representing my position and ignoring the facts really doesn't help anything or anyone right now.

Cheers
JohnM
I will also change the filename from .luafltkrc to .murgaluarc to give provide even more attribution.
I for one am very glad that things are looking better now.  You know, the murgaLua/FLTK toolkit is one of my favorite parts of DSL, even though I know little about it.  But I sure enjoy using it.
I don't want my earlier comments to cause lingering feelings.  John, I am sorry I called you a troll and accused you of not wanting a solution.  I was having a bad evening, and I tend to let my emotions get the best of me sometimes.
Next Page...
original here.