Forum: User Feedback
started by: John
Posted by John on June 19 2008,17:58John,
As you know DSL has benefited from the work of your project. We are prepared to remove all use of murgaLUA and derived work, but I am hoping it will not come to that. What specifically can we do to comply with your wishes while allowing the DSL community to benefit from your fine work?
Posted by JohnMurga on June 19 2008,19:22Thanks for the response,
I will attempt to be as open minded and fair as you have been ...
I wouldn't and can't ask you to remove murgaLua and derived works.
All I can do is ask you to comply with the license by putting something in the header of :
Stating it's ultimate origin, and maybe a link to the GPL and the copyright of the original work ... Same applies to other source files that may be present.
And putting something in the version message of your lua launcher that acknowledges the inclusion of portions of murgaLua with the purpose of powering your FLTK UIs (so that when "lua" is invoked without parameters it displays the underlying copyrights - as murgaLua does).
The fact you need a "require" keyword to link to my FLTK code doesn't mean my code isn't present in your distribution.
These changes and the cause for them should also really be included in your release notes for the next DSL version.
I am flexible as to the wording of all this, and I hope you understand my intent.
If this happened within a reasonable timeframe it would address my GPL concerns, as it is what I was hoping for against hope (the reason why I have not yet sent the takedown notices I have drafted).
One thing that would be nice is a text file in same directory as your ISOs stating what you extracted from murgaLua and where the compilable source can be found online, along with a statement indicating that this represents a limited subset of what's available in the standard murgaLua environment.
What would also be nice is to leave this, and the locked thread in place as evidence of what transpired (for all of us who argued to remember and think about).
As for the underlying reason for the changes on your side, and what we can do if indeed you have any interest in the evolution of the core murgaLua ...
I think some time has to pass for the air to clear, I have to read your forums in more detail to understand where our priorities still intersect, and then we can take it from there if it still makes sense ... I do have an open mind, and maybe a murgaLua light is what some require, but I would like this to be done properly and be part of an identifiable and consistent proposition as opposed to a series of hacks in different places.
In that respect it helps to talk, and I feel mikshaw would make a perfect bridge if he desired because of his prior involvement and extremely helpful and even handed demeanor at all times ... He did make me enjoy supporting DSL when things where going well.
Let me know if we can put this matter to rest, although I understand that you need roberts agreement before proceeding.
Posted by clivesay on June 19 2008,19:36Very good clear response. I sincerely hope everyone can come to an agreement. I'm glad that you held off on actions until you had communication with John and RS.
Posted by John on June 19 2008,20:39Thank you for your response John. Robert and I have talked and we will be happy to comply with most of your requests.
- modifying the header of fltk.lua to your satisfaction
clearly acknowledging murgaLUA in our next release and sighting the modifications to fltk.lua
- adding a text file in the same directory as our ISOs saying that we are using a limited subset of murgaLua and providing the URL for the compilable source where one can take advantage of all the features of murgaLUA proper
- leave this thread and the other locked thread for all to see
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?
BTW a light version would be great! As you know we chose murgaLUA as our primary GUI because of its speed and compactness.
Posted by kuky on June 19 2008,21:50
beers to all and peace over the world
ps is hidden camera for tv program ?
Posted by mikshaw on June 19 2008,22:01
I'm very pleased that things are cooling off...it was getting frustrating because I greatly appreciate both DSL and murgaLua as the two projects that have inspired me over anything else in Linux, and I could understand many of the concerns and comments made on both sides of the issue.
It is apparent that much of what was said from both ends was influenced by emotion, and I really hope something can be worked out that will satisfy everyone concerned. The thought of abandoning such a great tool in addition to harboring bad feelings is something that just can't be allowed to happen, particularly in communities which claim to help, inspire, and share with others.
Posted by jpeters on June 19 2008,22:20
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,22:22
Speaking for yourself?
No matter how useful this compilation of software has been, I'm concerned that DSL will now trade a little "security" for liberty. You can find what Ben Franklin said about those elsewhere. ;)
There's a bigger principle involved here than his or anyone's emotions. It's about the right to the see the sources, the right to change the sources to suit one's own needs (rather than the developer's), and the right to redistribute those changes.
DSL didn't change code, just the compilation so the parts could be used independently rather than the full sum. This negates all of his claims that anything was changed. If there needs to be a copyright notice, make it suitable. But I don't see RMS everytime I cp, mv, or tar something. I don't need to see Murga's name every time I run something like lua or fltk. (I won't see it anyway but that's my right.)
As far as that little bit of security I mentioned goes, you saw how this was handled by Murga. Have we had an answer about why it's only an issue NOW that copyright notices aren't prominently displayed when lua -- with or without the rest of the runtime -- is invoked? What will happen next time someone chooses to use the freedom afforded by the license he chose for his project? Will they again be reflexively accused of pilfering code? Of removing things that haven't been removed? Of changing things that haven't been changed? Of daring to embrace the freedom of having the source to suit *our own needs* so long as we comply with the rest of the GPL? Or will he continue moving goalposts so things that weren't required before are required now?
What good is the code -- what good is the GPL -- if you're unable to use it as you see fit?
I know John and Robert are trying to mend a fence even though they didn't break it. Maybe this isn't one that shouldn't be mended.
If DSL sacrifices the freedom of the GPL in this instance, where will it cut the next corner?
Fork the code. You don't need his permission to use it. Just make the proper attributions and acknowledgments as they were status quo ante -- before Murga changed his mind about his license (and what it means for users) and about all the new hoops he wants DSL to jump through.
(edited: moved one sentence)
Posted by jpeters on June 19 2008,22:39Lucky13....maybe it's time for your own distro?
Posted by WDef on June 19 2008,22:44Er .. Lucky .. I'm not sure I understand all the subtleties here and certainly not all of the history, but it does look like a resolution has been achieved. I'd be inclined to go with that. It's John and Robert's decision anyway.
The problem with doing a fork is someone with the appropriate skills then has to maintain it. Who is that going to be?
I'd tend to err on the side of respecting the wishes of the murga lua copyright holder, or of any software author over ideological correctness. It could (?) be that the GPL does not adequately reflect John Murga's wishes for his code. Assuming he is copyright holder, it could be that John Murga could turn nasty and (theoretically at least) re-license the non-derived parts of a future release of Murga Lua under a much more restrictive license. In which case we could be screwed as far as updates and bug fixes are concerned.
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?
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,22:59
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...
Since florian effected and compiled the changed configuration, it seems he's up to the task. If he's interested, of course.
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.
Posted by clivesay on June 19 2008,23:34my 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.
Posted by lucky13 on June 20 2008,00:06
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.
Posted by andrewb on June 20 2008,02:21
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:
and GPL 3 states:
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!)
Posted by mikshaw on June 20 2008,02:29I'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?
Posted by lucky13 on 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.
Diplomacy doesn't start with claiming others violated the GPL and not having much evidence to prove it.
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.
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.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 20 2008,05:27
Thanks, that is a much better idea.
It looks like if we have an agreement then
Posted by JohnMurga on June 20 2008,05:37
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.
Posted by roberts on June 20 2008,05:40I will also change the filename from .luafltkrc to .murgaluarc to give provide even more attribution.
Posted by Jason W on June 20 2008,09:17I 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.
Posted by lucky13 on June 20 2008,10:09
It is like I *have* and I don't need you to explain what's happened or to lecture me about simple solutions.
Posted by jpeters on June 20 2008,10:13What about extensions? Does this mean that source code has to be included along with compiled binaries?
Posted by chaostic on June 20 2008,11:22
They don't have to accompany the downloaded binaries, but should be available. Since DSL has taken responsibility for distributing the extensions via the MYDSL Repository, DSL (And any mirror) would be responsible for providing the sources, upon request. So anyone submitting an extension, should (Imho) send John or Robert a copy of the sources, and in the info file, indicate that the person requiring the source can "A: Take the faster road of downloading it from the package's original website, or B: If no longer available at A, email: email@example.com"
Posted by lucky13 on June 20 2008,11:36
Yes, the sources should be available for anything with a license (GPL) requiring it. I'd asked Robert about this behind the scenes (Murga might try that kind of thing sometime) before all this came up with ananda's remasters and this mess Murga stirred up. The problems with merely linking to sites are:
- the GPL doesn't allow that -- which is why John himself had to make the sources available instead of directing people to the upstream repositories for the distros upon which DSL is based,
- the sites typically won't include any files generated by or changed during configuration (which is required by GPL as andrewb reminded us),
- many of the extensions are from Debian Woody with no reference to patch levels or changes (and as the recent Debian SSL problem proves, that can be a very important thing to know), and
- Debian no longer has Woody repos linked so those things can even be checked.
There are also other problems I pointed out with respect to accuracy of license information. Some MyDSL extensions are shown with the wrong license. I gave Robert a few examples where things are listed as GPL when they aren't (perhaps vice versa, too, but I'm not auditing the entire repository) or one license is shown when there are more in effect because different projects are combined into one extension.
I also asked about how to - ahem - handle the issue with respect to lengthier copyright attributions required by some projects and libraries.
These are things that should be cleared up ASAP and while this Murga BS is still fresh in our minds.
Again, I have the sources for everything -- GPL or otherwise -- that I've submitted. I also explicitly noted in one (GPL'ed) extension which I later asked to be removed what my configuration options were to comply as much as I could since DSL wasn't keeping any sources.
Posted by JohnMurga on June 20 2008,12:55
And all that in just one post, do you think the constant mud-slinging reflects badly on me our you ?
At a time when people are trying to focus on the positive aspects of this incident and move on it may be helpful if you do the same ...
Specially considering that your post appears to contain valuable information.
Posted by lucky13 on June 20 2008,13:04
See the locked thread if you want to see mud-slinging. You sure as hell threw more than your share, especially when you chose to ignore the questions I asked regarding which part of this you had a problem with, why you were okay with the way things were before wrt attributions, what it would take to resolve the matter peaceably, etc.
I don't suffer fools or petulant little prima donnas very well. You have your flaws, I have mine.
Posted by clivesay on June 20 2008,13:12After this incident, dslcore may be a good clean slate to make sure our house is in order all the way around, especially in regards to DSL extensions. I know that, personally, I'm not real schooled on all the licensing. This may be a call for all of us to get up to speed a little better and learn a little more. I know I will when building my extensions for the core. Robert is supplying the core so I feel that it's the community's responsibility to carry some of the load and help with this. Obviously, lucky13 has studied the GPL and maybe can be a big help with guiding the rest of us.
This thread is getting off topic a little so maybe time for a dedicated thread for handling extension sources and licensing?
Posted by mikshaw on June 20 2008,13:16
Posted by JohnMurga on June 20 2008,14:10
Re-reading the thread I can't see you being quite as reasonable as you describe, but the evidence is there for all to see, so people can make their mind up for themselves (one of the reasons I wanted it preserved).
It reminds me of a Lewis Carroll quote, along the lines that if you say something enough times people (including oneself), will believe it to be true regardless of of the truth.
Posted by lucky13 on June 20 2008,15:06
I'm very much open to compromise, but it takes two parties to do that. In this case, one party decided to accuse the other of theft, license infringement, "butchering" and "molesting," etc. I didn't choose how to license murgalua, Murga did. I didn't bundle the murgalua tarball, Murga did. Read through all his documentation and license information, copyright attribution requirements, etc. Then come back and weigh what I've written and asked against his continued attacks on others here and his new demands to resolve this issue. I wasn't shooting any blanks, he was the moment he cast the first stones. And the second. And the third...
On the grounds (alone) that he infers DSL needed his permission to use his GPL'ed code before, I wouldn't touch it because that's not what GPL is about. I respect Robert's and John's decisions to reach whatever truce they can with such an irrational, unbalanced individual. I just hope that placating him now doesn't end up with more trouble down the road if and when his feelings get hurt again. And that's all this was about. Not about the license but about Murga's fragile ego.
Feel free to work with Murga and reach your own compromises with whomever you want whenever you want on whatever terms you want. I can and and do and will respect that. But respect me enough in return to not demand or wish I would reach similar compromise with anyone who moves his goalposts, who shoots first and asks questions later, and who chooses to lash out at everyone he disagrees with when the terms under which he licensed something allow for the very thing he objected to in the first place to be done.
(minor edit to clarify)
Posted by roberts on June 20 2008,15:34That thread was locked, but not by your request, Mr. Murga.
It was locked by request. It clearly shows how you chose to handle this matter.
All this ill will could have been avoided, but you, Mr Murga, choose to attack and quite strongly not only here but on your site.
You, Mr Murga, chose to shoot first, not asking any questions. Making a huge public display that could only serve to start the mud slinging.
It is preserved in that thread that your position changed several times. First that your code was bastardized. With the last being that murgaLua was designed to run only form the command prompt. When each point was refuted you moved to something else.
Then finally after things couldn't get any worse you post and finally email me with your one single lua script, fltk.lua ,with a claim that attributions and license reference were removed.
Here is a comparison of the claimed file that violates the GPL.
(see < http://www.murga-projects.com/murgaLua/infraction-details.txt) >
The first code is from murgaLua, and as you can see there is
no attribution or copyright included with this script.
This script can be found in the murgaLua release at
< http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub.....tar.gz >
and found in the src/ directory of said archive.
You can see nothing of the sort of attrubtion or copyrights were removed as there were none, in fact you see comments of how and why of the mods together with script porition from MurgaLuaLib.lua which is given credit.
It was I who was recommending to John after receiving our first and only email from you; the following:
So we finally got down to one lua script with a false claim that DSL removed attrubtions and license reference.
For all to see nothing was removed. Also is the fact that DSL, John, nor I, modified this script, rather the 3rd party. The simple matter of adding attributions and a gpl license reference could have been quickly handled privately and avoid the incident that you, Mr Murga, chose.
And now - what kumbaya?
We may have settled on a technical agreement which is more than the above.
You, Mr Murga, were demanding that your name and copywrite appear on every invocation of the standard Lua interpreter. What an amazing demand. Of course I rejected it. You, Mr Murga did not write Lua, or Fltk, or Lua sockets or Lua filesystem.
I am glad that you came to your senses to accepted my offer that your copywrite notice to appear for every command line invocation only for code that you actually wrote.
But can you imagine if every developer made such demands.
Look at it from a perl perspective. Every library (pm) that your perl uses need to print banners upon every startup from every developer. I am sure glad that is not the case.
Can you imagine, if every developer of lua code required a modified Lua interpreter so that their name and copywrite was displayed.
We may have a technical agreement that I will implement in DSL v4. But I have great reservations on moving forward.
While I admire your work and chose it even after warning of your other assocations. I do not admire your approach to handling issues that may arise between our projects.
So you, Mr. Murga, wanted this matter handled publically and not privately. You now have my final word on the this matter publically.
You have your GPL + strings, you have your ambassador assigned.
I don't see any reason for your continued posts as it appears only to serve as further incitment of futher ill will
It is done.