Usage of murgaLua by DSL
Forum: User Feedback
Topic: Usage of murgaLua by DSL
started by: JohnMurga
Posted by JohnMurga on June 18 2008,19:12http://www.murga-projects.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=324
Posted by lucky13 on June 18 2008,19:59I'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 :-)
Posted by kuky on June 18 2008,20:10To 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)
Posted by lucky13 on June 18 2008,20:59Piggybacking what I wrote above...
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?
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?
Posted by JohnMurga on June 18 2008,21:11lucky13, 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
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.
Posted by lucky13 on June 18 2008,21:30
Dear Mr Murga,
Thanks for the links. My reading comprehension is apparently many levels above yours because I understand that the GPL, which is the license under which I seem to recall you released murgalua, doesn't give *you* the right to determine how I use your or anyone else's GPL code on my own computers. Yet that seems to be your biggest problem with all this.
Neither of my previous responses was mean-spirited. Nor was my reference to this and another issue on my blog. I asked if you ordered sources to see if the changes to your code -- ALLOWED UNDER GPL -- have been noted and attributions to you provided. I also reiterated the freedom to users of GPL code to change the code as much as to use it and see it. GPL doesn't require others to use your code as *you* determine, but rather they do.
If you're looking for spirits of cooperation and openness, perhaps you should start with that yourself. Instead, you've insinuated here by linking to your forums that others have violated a license that expressly allows them to use your code in such ways as they have as long as (a) they make the sources available and (b) attribute your copyrights where necessary. You apparently haven't verified for yourself if either has or has not been done. And *you* have the nerve to call *me* ignorant.
I appreciate your freedom to use whatever license is afforded by all the products you've chosen to incorporate into murgalua. Most of them use licenses much less restrictive than GPL which afford you to do whatever you want with it. Too bad you don't share the same views of freedom and would choose to prevent others from using your code as they see fit and, like Bill Gates, require them to use it on your strict terms.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 18 2008,21:45
If putting words into my mouth is the only way you can make you point ...
Almost every point in the GPL V2 (under which I released my code), has been violated ... READ IT.
Again, READ the GPL V2 and what I have written.
Maybe what you have written too :-)
Now I'm just thinking you read what you want to believe :-)
But you can keep the ignorant adjective ...
Wow, again, if you had been paying attention you would have seen I am referring to the code I wrote ... Which as it happens is the code that was ripped out and not attributed (in many ways, as in it's original form it's a command line prog with a copyright notice, the C++ code, etc, etc) ...
But there's other points too.
A minimum of research on your side would reveal that I have always been very aware and careful around the licenses of whose work I use ... But I guess that wouldn't fit into the picture you had made up when you started bating me.
You sad sad man :-)
Posted by Jason W on June 18 2008,21:46Whether we like or not what Mr. Murga has said in his forum about DSL's use of his code, I believe it is an issue for Robert or John and Mr. Murga to discuss. Such discussion affects the future of DSL and MurgaLua and is best left to those project leaders. This would have been best left for the project leaders to discuss in private if they so desired before public responses were made.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 18 2008,21:51
True, but it's also useful for me to appreciate the level of importance that this has to DSL users, and gauge their response as gives me an idea of the community as whole.
And as it is lucky13 had some questions that he wanted answered.
Posted by lucky13 on June 18 2008,21:55JasonW:
Agreed. Unfortunately Mr Murga's feelings are hurt.
@Murga: I have no more pearls to cast before...
< ftp://ftp.oss.cc.gatech.edu/pub....ces.txt >
Posted by JohnMurga on June 18 2008,22:07lucky13 ... I had a look at your blog (for my own amusement - my feelings, you see).
OK, so you are a GPL/FSF hater, fine ... I was a member :-)
However, if you read the letter of the GPL V2 you'll see far from the whimsical FSF "freedoms" it is quite specific about what you can and can't do. Again, we are referring specifically to the code I wrote, that I was free to license, and the letter of the legal document it is licensed under.
And DSL did some things that molested me, and other things that are plain illegal ... And still haven't replied to my mails (OK, they haven't had much time I guess).
I don't overestimate the important of my feelings ...
I suspect I am not quite as dogmatic as yourself.
But thanks for making sure I didn't take this lightly ;-)
Either way I hope to hear from Robert or John by tomorrow :-(
PS : Why did you post the GPL_Sources link ? I told you that doesn't address the problem ... So I have to assume you either don't care (you decided you'd post it anyway, didn't you ;-) ), or we are back to your reading comprehension problem ... Which I'd be glad to help you with.
PPS : You are right about my feelings being hurt, but you are wrong about me expecting anyone to care :-)
Posted by lucky13 on June 18 2008,22:42I know your feelings are hurt. You feel your bindings have been "butchered." You're unhappy someone has exercised discretion and latitudes allowed them under a license you chose. You're very unhappy, and you admit you're not reasonable because you're worked up about it. I know because I read all about that.
< http://lucky13linux.wordpress.com/files/2008/06/whine1b-sc.png >
Before you accuse people of doing illegal things, maybe you should investigate a little more about it first. Order the sources like anyone else and, if you want DSL to signify your copyright on every freaking page of the website and on every freaking ISO downloaded so everyone knows they used your bindings (even if it's in a way you don't want them used), work with them and see if they do that. But for God's sake quit being such a drama queen and stop demanding others use code you released under GPL only in a way you approve of.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 18 2008,22:59
Again putting YOUR words in my mouth ...
Is that the ONLY way you can make a point ?
Good highlighting of only the bits you are interested in though :-)
As it is, did you read my last post ? (the PS bit?!)
The letter of the GPL 2 is quite clear, which would be apparent if you read it ... The principles and availability of the source code make little difference in this case (just to repeat myself), read points 1-3 in the license ... Be a better person ;-)
I did do my research, I'll write it up if I am forced to ...
Either way I am reserving THAT message until tomorrow.
Posted by lucky13 on June 18 2008,23:03You've made clear that you've sent e-mails. You have NOT said if you ordered sources. That is all you need to do to verify if DSL is in compliance. And the link for the sources is where you can order them. Are you really this daft? Maybe you should take up something a little less stressful if you're so easily offended. Take your flames and irrational BS somewhere else or try to address these matters again when you're not so freaking emotive.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 18 2008,23:33
Wow, as much as I tell you to look at the license you refuse ...
I can only refer you to my previous posts ... And I think that people who read this whole topic won't think I'm the daft one.
As for emotive responses ...
Pot ... Kettle ;-)
PS : Maybe I was wrong about "reading comprehension" ... Maybe just "reading"
PPS : Waiting for your next "last word" on the subject.
Posted by lucky13 on June 18 2008,23:40I *have* read the license and it doesn't restrict anyone from "butchering" or doing whatever they want, so long as they make the sources available (order the freaking sources CD yet?!) and make the proper copyright attributions. Now answer this: Where has DSL complied with these terms before your panties got all twisted up because they decided the bindings were useful even if the way YOU chose to use them weren't in the best interests for DSL? If you've wanted compliance, you're kind of late to the party. Hypocrite.
Posted by clivesay on June 18 2008,23:58Alright guys. You're just tossing the ball back and forth to each other...not getting anywhere.
I don't know you and I don't know diddly about programming. I have been around this project for probably at least 6yrs. I know John and Robert personally and have been around here as different events have happened in this distro. That includes times when John A. and myself haven't seen eye to eye.
All I know is that BOTH of these men try VERY hard to run DSL in a professional manner and have always cared greatly about honoring licenses. Having license descriptions within the mydsl extensions and such are their requirements of the community. They have had code 'lifted' by other projects without due credit and know how that feels. Robert lives and breathes software development and always has great concern for honoring licenses and doing the right thing. He and I had many discussions about those very things when I was building a distro for my non-profit work. I don't believe for ONE SECOND that anything malicious or backhanded has been done by these two men.
I am personally disappointed in your approach to this issue as I feel that you should have talked to John and/or Robert directly before throwing this out in public and posting a link in this forum. You surely knew that people like lucky13 would react. Seems getting a "reaction" was really more of a priority than resolving the issue.
I believe what you are saying was done maliciously was really discussed very openly in the following thread. I read through it and I think the discussion started where I linked and continued for several pages. Seems like it was a very open discussion for all the world to read.
< DSL4.3 thread >
I hope for now you will cease to discuss this issue openly until you have a conversation with John and/or Robert.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 18 2008,23:59
OK, you are pretty sad ...
And don't read very well :-)
Actually you decided what the reality was a long time ago, and I guess you are consistent because you are sticking to it despite all the evidence to the contrary ... So I'll give you a senility kudos if you like ;-)
Do you always handle it this badly when people disagree with you ?
Terms 1) and 2) (sections a) and c)) are being violated, and some of the source is already being distributed in DSL without attributions ... I don't need to order the CDs to see that as the violations are occurring regardless of that (as I have tried to explain 4 times - my hard headed friend).
Go on do some basic research yourself.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 19 2008,00:06
It is intelectual property theft ... I take that seriously.
To be honest I was shocked by how unnecessary it all was - I do admit that lucky's contempt towards the work and ideas of others has pushed things a little.
Didn't say it was maliciously, I merely pointed out the problems with the approach ... Namely that is illegal, dumb, and caused bad blood.
I waiting for a response and I am hoping for solutions ... I was hoping to calm down by engaging the community, but lucky has ensured that didn't happen.
Either way I am going to sleep now and hope something happens by morning.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,00:07
You're irrational, you're upset, you're by your own admission "not reasonable." IOW, your impressions of everything are @*#&ed up. Come back after you've taken your medication or slept it off or found your "happy place." I'm not going to get in a flame war with someone as hypersensitive as you are. And please don't call me your friend with or without adjectives. With your attitude, you never will be mine.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 19 2008,00:12
That's nice and rational for you ;-)
But you really do have to stop the putting your words in my mouth, doesn't make for a convincing argument ...
How many friends do you have, out of interest ? ;-)
Posted by chaostic on June 19 2008,00:17
Wait, isn't the mugralua bindings that dsl uses mostly un-interactive? Isn't it used to simple run a script, which the script asks for input?
Then how is 2c of the gpl 2 being violated?
Posted by clivesay on June 19 2008,00:17John,
The quote from your forum is "they have gone behind my back and butchered my project". You are inferring some malicious intent.
Listen, I'm sure you believe that you have been wronged and it may be true. I honestly don't know since I am not a developer. I just feel like some restraint in posting to the DSL forums would have been a better approach until you had at least talked to the DSL devs.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,00:27I haven't put a single word in your mouth. Go look again at your post where you accuse DSL of violating the GPL. Your widdle feewings are hurt. Your chief complaint is about the "butchering" of the FLTK bindings because you're a control freak who objects to others using code you released under GPL as they see fit (EDIT: THAT WAS ONE OF THE POINTS YOU RAISED AGAIN WRT LICENSING AND MODIFYING THE LICENSE SO OTHERS *CANNOT* USE IT AS THEY SEE FIT! IF THE GPL DOESN'T SUIT YOUR TASTES OR YOUR THRESHHOLD FOR OTHERS USING THAT CODE AS THEY SEE FIT, YOU SHOULDN'T USE GPL!). That's all that was done. You've not been molested. Those are YOUR words. Not mine. It's amusing to say the least that you'd whine about code being "butchered" just because YOUR way isn't necessarily the best for everyone else's needs, but that only indicates what kind of person you are. Not much we do about that. That's your problem. Just wish you wouldn't try to make it everyone else's.
If there's ANY oversight on copyright notices, do you think MAYBE there are more productive ways of handling such matters? If you're concerned about the sources, have you ordered them yet or asked for them yet (and if so, have you been denied them)?
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,00:40There is and never was any intent to violate the GPL.
The development of murgalua-fltk.so.0.6.8 as a shared library occured openly and discussed in the Site News on DSL v4.3, see posts starting around May 02, 2008, or approximately p15. I would suggest everyone interested to read this. Compliance to the GPL is also discussed during this thread.
It is very unfortunate that Mr Murga attacks the DSL project without privately contacting the developers of DSL and gathering facts and trying to resolve any concerns.
I know the DSL project does not operate that way. To come here and flame bait as well as post accusations on your website is very sad. It serves only to promote ill will between our two projects.
Just as you have said you were promoting DSL, DSL was and is promoting murgaLua. I believe DSL is the only distribution that uses murgaLua as its main widget scritpting environment.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 19 2008,00:56
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.
That portion of murgaLua was modified and re-packaged for DSL with the result that all those copyright messages and attributions where removed, furthermore, some lua sources where extracted from the murgaLua source distribution and bundled with DSL, but the accompanying license and copyright information (which is in a separate file), wasn't re-distributed and the code isn't attributed.
These are two of the violations ... You don't have to be a coder to understand them, you just have to be more intelligent than lucky13 (who probably does need help).
The GPL covers my current grievances just fine.
Mr Roberts, thanks for your response ...
Unfortunately it is you who has violated the license of my project.
Takedown requests for the affected versions of DSL will be sent out to all known mirrors in the morning once professional advice had been sought (I believe that with you being based in the US I have additional legal recourse).
You are invited to take remedial action before that time.
I will take measures to ensure you don't abuse my work in the future, as for the flame bating ... Well I have a different opinion of where that came from.
Posted by Jason W on June 19 2008,01:02John Murga, it is apparent you are the troll here. All you wanted was a fight, and you got what you wanted. You did not want a resolution to anything that concerns you or you would have contacted Robert or John and let them respond. You even bragged about the ensuing fight in the Puppy forum shortly after it started. I thought you were above that.
EDIT: I was going to stay out of it, but when I heard of Robert being accused of acting "dumb" and "illegal" that did it.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 19 2008,01:12I was already shocked and disappointed by DSLs actions ...
What people fail to appreciate is that they committed the crime against me (stole my intellectual property), and I have the same need to be nice to them as to someone that just stole my bike.
As it is this attitude and sense of entitlement pretty much kills my motivation to go on with murgaLua in it's current form, and again it's DSL who looses there.
Posted by mikshaw on June 19 2008,01:16
It seems to me that the main issue is not that the software has been modified and redistributed (which is perfectly acceptible under GPL), but that it was redistributed without including the original copyright notice or written offer to supply the source. As I said, I haven't seen it yet, but it should also state that it is a modification and when it was modified.
Since there are obviously at least two interpretations of the GPL at work here, I'd have to say that the letter of the license is _not_ clear after all. Does "accompany" actually mean "include on the same disk", or could it be interpreted as "include on the same server with the disk"? My thought is the former is at least the safest path to take, and I'm honestly surprised that the notice to which lucky linked earlier is not already on the disk, sitting next to /usr/share/doc/License/GNUGPL
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,01:26
Posted by clivesay on June 19 2008,01:39
OK, now this is getting ridiculous. What professional advice are you going to seek?
"Mr Murga, did you make an attempt to contact the DSL project leaders and inform them of their oversight?"
"No, I decided to write a message accusing malice on my website then post it to the DSL project's forum to elicit hostile responses from their community before I had any conversations with the developers."
I was trying to be objective earlier to your complaint but you are quickly showing that your intentions are not honorable and that you appear to be looking for an opportunity to damage a project that has promoted your work for awhile now. Apparently you never appreciated the DSL project using your work or else you wouldn't move so quickly to damage that relationship. People do sometimes make mistakes. I have no idea if that happened here but your actions definitely do not reflect a person who really is interested in working in a collaborative environment.
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,01:46What 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.
If a specific License needs to be included then that will be done. DSL is actually a third party to this event. I repeat no malicious intent by anyone at DSL. The outside development was to be able to continue to use murgaLua. But perhaps that is not now going to be possible. I know that if the only choice is all-in-one murgaLua then I will pass. It is just too bloated and slow except for large machines.
I would like to hear from the developer of this shared library. John nor I removed anything. The shared library and its howto creation is from the other site. It is likely many have obtained this and not just from site DSL.
This should have been handled with the direct parties involved, instead of making outrageous claims against DSL and causing such ill will.
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,03:33BTW. Looking at the .cxx files included with murgaLua, some have no copyrights some have gpl v2 reference. There is a full GPLv2 license.
There is a full gpl v2 license in all versions of DSL.
murgaLua also contains a separate compiler license which does not apply.
It will be interesting to hear from the developer of the shared library. From prior posts no source code was changed only the method of compilation. Therefore no documentation of said change is required per the gpl. I can attest to this, as I followed his compilation method without modifying a single line of code.
The real difference seems to be the claim of section 2c. Which John Murga now claims is obvious. Do all other project that use murgaLua use it only from the command line? I think not.
The derived work is not a command line modification of said work.
Still an interesting question.
Posted by jpeters on June 19 2008,08:46Whoever said that geeks, nerds, wizards, etc., can't express emotions?
Okay....now back to work!
(note: the original post was rejected with the message:
"You have posted a message with more emoticons that (sic) this board allows. Please reduce the number of emoticons you've (sic) added to the message"
Edit: I don't see why DSL should be restricting my right to use emoticons the way I see fit for my own purposes (I may seek counsel tomorrow)
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,09:41
The real difference appears to be what he has posted about "butchering" and "molesting" the "whole" by modifying it so the parts can be used as we see fit rather than as he sees fit. He linked to an example of his objections to this in his forums, where he says he won't support or condone separating the FLTK bindings.
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?
If it's just the copyright notices that have him whining now, I don't see how including them in some external form to provide him proper attribution doesn't remedy the situation. Except for his crappy, immature attitude and desire to make mountains out of molehills -- which makes dealing with him and using his code a bit of a hassle regardless of how well it serves us.
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,12:01I 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.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,12:09The 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.
Posted by mikshaw on June 19 2008,12:15
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,12:20
Agreed. I thought the offer was made in the getting started doc. Maybe append it at the end of the license section:
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,13:06Good idea. Except only sources for GPL code are required and not all binaries.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,15:19Then:
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,15:42Here for all to see. Nothing more than a howto text file, excerpted from the README from the developers tarball.
As you can see not a single line of source code was changed.
All that is needed is this recipe.
Posted by jpeters on June 19 2008,15:53I think the feelings involve a separate issue. Immediately prior to this fiasco, JM had complained on the Puppy board that Puppy wasn't using his code, noting DSL's useage of it. The response was rather cold, i,e, we don't need it. Then he discovered that DSL isn't using it either, except for adopting some fragments into another system. I believe this was felt like a slap in the face,and thus the reaction.
Even Robert has expressed emotions at time for feeling that his efforts go largely unappreciated. I don't see any benefit to all the name calling, etc. Let's acknowledge JM as a bright guy who has contributed lot's of time and good work (like Robert). The language employed in this thread no doubt escalated the feelings and reactions.
There's a time for working out trivial legal details (of little importance to the user), and a time for handling an issue with adult sensitivity.
Posted by mikshaw on June 19 2008,16:00Very interesting and relevant thread here (2005)
< http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=33 >
And some other relevant or semi-relevant links:
< http://lucky13linux.wordpress.com/category/fsf-sucks/ >
< http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4218186268.html >
< http://www.linux.com/articles/55285 >
Posted by mikshaw on June 19 2008,16:06@ roberts: it appears pretty amazing what he was able to accomplish at compile time. I can't see any way how this is any different than what you did before, as far as the GPL is concerned. If it were, then any time you changed a configure flag to compile a binary, you'd be in violation.
What jpeters said is very good. Both Robert and JohnM put a lot of work into their projects, and it is understandable that feelings can get injured if you don't receive proper credit.
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,16:08But we are using it and promoting it. It is called murgalua-fltk.so.0.6.8.
It is not called luafltk.so.0.6.8 which I would not have accepted.
JM should have contacted me privately, he still has not. Then the facts could have been presented and the principals invloved could have handled this matter.
JM has put me in a defensive position. My posts have been factual and not imflamatory to him or anyone else. But now I feel I must post publicly the facts regarding this matter.
I think I have remained rather calm given the slur and accusation that JM posted about me and DSL and not only here but on his site and Puppy forums.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,16:09
They appear to be front and center of the problem Murga has with all of this. He was free to choose any license he wanted for his code. He chose one which gives users distinct freedoms to use it as they -- the users -- choose. And in whole or in part at their own discretion, not his, so long as they comply with the rest of the terms of said license.
Despite his protests, it appears DSL has complied with the terms of the GPL. I've asked him several times to explain what was wrong and what it would take to correct it, and whether this was the appropriate way in which to handle it. You can see yourself how he chose to handle it.
He has to learn to control himself and do things in a manner in which he can handle consequences. One of the consequences of using GPL is you're openly giving liberties to your users. Murga wants to restrict users instead. That's inconsistent with the license no matter what his feelings are about it. I don't see Linus Torvalds going completely apesh*t when people don't compile certain drivers or include certain pieces of kernel source in their kernels. He gives them the right to choose for themselves how to set up their own systems. Murga doesn't seem mature enough to let others do the same with his code.
If Murga is this thin-skinned about others' freedom, he really needs to find something else to do. Or at least other ways of dealing with his frustrations without lashing out at those to whom he offers both code and the freedoms to use it as they see fit.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,16:29@mikshaw: Thanks for the links.
I'm no more a fan of GPL than I am of proprietary licenses -- both are products of the same mentality, different sides of a single coin. I accept everyone has a right to choose how to license one's own code and every one has a right to choose to use anyone else's software with respect to any restrictions imposed. It's all about what one is willing to put up with on either side (developer, user) of the equation.
If "freedom" is your goal, I think BSD is more about it than GPL. Dittos for MIT/X and other licenses that give users freedom without restrictions.
I comply with Microsoft's licenses because I respect their right to do whatever they want with their own code. I comply with GPL because I believe each developer has a right to choose it if he or she wants. I comply with Creative Commons regardless of variation because authors' and musicians' and artists' rights and wishes should be defended and protected rather than infringed. I respect RIAA and the copyrights they seek to protect against piracy for the same reason I respect Creative Commons.
With respect to this issue, we didn't choose GPL. Murga did. As far as I can tell, DSL hasn't violated the GPL. That's what matters here. If DSL isn't in compliance, that needs to be fixed. The way Murga has chosen to go about this really isn't very productive. He's the one who chose this route. Not the DSL developers or community.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 19 2008,16:38Hi,
One of the first things I did was send messages to Robert and John at their
publicly available email addresses (@damnsmalllinux.org), these have so far
I have to said I am pretty surprised at the contempt to issues outside your
own interests. But the fact remains you have violated the GPL in how you
distributed murgaLua code that I wrote.
You took a program that was command-line, and removed the parts that
you didn't want … Which is fine except for the fact that you also removed
the copyright messages and attributions ... And you went on to distribute
this to the world.
How you got the modified software is largely irrelevant, just as you wouldn't
be able to include any other copyrighted work just because it came from an
external site (like a warez site for instance).
Remedial action is to remove the infraction and formally apologize.
My takedown notices should take care of the existing infractions.
At the moment you are stealing my intellectual property.
Any future association is out of the question as I really do not want be involved
in any way with people who engage in such practices … As it is the future of
the affected work is under threat anyway - You probably killed the project.
Please be advised that I'll be seeking to recover any administration costs
and legal fees I will incur as a result of getting you to comply with the law
(I just found out how expensive legal advice in the states is).
Right now you are leaving me only one path to follow.
I wish that wasn't the case.
The documentation that has been filed with the appropriate organizations
can be found here :
< http://www.murga-projects.com/murgaLua/infraction-details.txt >
< http://www.murga-projects.com/murgaLu....les.txt >
I have a long track record of involvement with open source and community
projects and have never done any of it for personal gain (or actually had
these kinds of issues before). Anyone who is interested can verify this for
I have nothing to prove, I just need you to stop the infraction of MY rights.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,16:54
Can't speak for John and Robert, but I'm pretty sure there's mutual agreement on that point.
You probably should've sought such advice before you chose the GPL, and certainly before you decided to handle this matter in this manner. As it now stands, you have a lengthy written record boasting about your "fight" on other websites -- screenshots and mirrors of which are being maintained should anyone need them to demonstrate both your state of mind and your desire for conflict rather than resolution.
You set out on that path all by yourself yesterday. The whole world is watching.
Posted by clivesay on June 19 2008,16:55
My hope is that maybe a day of cool off will help things settle down a little. I definitely believe that Mr Murga is jumping to conclusions right now. I would like for him to feel that his work is appreciated and have DSL continue to progress with the smallest, fastest code possible.
As in many cases, the initial approach to an issue can be critical. This is an example where a negative approach generated a negative response.
EDIT: Well I see I posted too late. So much for cool off. Looks like Mr Murga is more interested in dollars than sensible resolution. This is really sad.
Posted by curaga on June 19 2008,17:03I can't see a problem here; the resulting file is a library, so it doesn't need to reproduce the original interactive copyright notice. Also, it looks like the file murgaLuaLib.lua has no notices / attributions that could be removed.
I can't see what this is about; but it certainly isn't worth going to court.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 19 2008,17:18
The attribution/licensing is done in the files accompanying the source file in the murgaLua distribution (the licenced product).
The resulting file is a library because you modified the build process removing all copyright attributions in the process.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 19 2008,17:48
Not at all interested in dollars, and never have been (ask any of the projects I support with my own cash).
However, if you make me take this to court you will pay the costs.
PS : If I had known what you where like I would have never given Robert permission to include murgaLua in DSL (as I did two years ago)
Posted by clivesay on June 19 2008,17:55John,
No one is "making" you take anything to court. You are offering up that option freely. Your comments to Robert have made that clear. You have made two references about legal recourse in the US and the costs associated with that.
Sorry, but you are coming across as more of a bully than someone who is really interested in protecting his interests.