DonationCoder.com Software > Circle Dock

Goodbye all, I'm out of here effective immediately

<< < (6/16) > >>

lotusrootstarch:
I apologize to Sarge I meant no harm and thanks for the clarification Mark. I'm more than happy to offer you dedicated server space, 100Mbps link, 2 Terabytes per month traffic free with no strings attached. I'm not after your source code keep it to yourself just upload the end-user files. This should give you guys time to figure out the licensing without hurting user adoption. PM me.

Markham:
I apologize to Sarge I meant no harm and thanks for the clarification Mark. I'm more than happy to offer you dedicated server space, 100Mbps link, 2 Terabytes per month traffic free with no strings attached. I'm not after your source code keep it to yourself just upload the end-user files. This should give you guys time to figure out the licensing without hurting user adoption. PM me.
-lotusrootstarch (August 12, 2010, 06:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
I am flabbergasted and truly grateful for your most generous offer. I will contact you by PM. Thank you so very much!



Mark

40hz:
I have removed a couple of posts as they seemed overall counter productive to this entire situation.
-sgtevmckay (August 12, 2010, 12:05 AM)
--- End quote ---

I didnt like some of the posts here, but re the ones you removed:
the first post started obnoxiously but both post had good advice for the OP, personally I think it's inappropriate to delete both of them. (Posts which are not spam have not been lightly deleted here at dc in the past - I'd hate to see it become a new style)
-tomos (August 12, 2010, 03:54 AM)
--- End quote ---

I hit the Report to the moderator button about the first post that got removed. So I feel I share some of the responsibility for it getting taken down from the forum. (I don't know why the second post got removed.)

That being said, I have no qualms about the fact I did complain. And on further consideration, I'm still going to stand by my original conclusion that the first one was troll-like in tone, personally insulting to a DC member, and added nothing of value to the discussion.

If I was so dense that I missed something of value in that particular post, perhaps the person who submitted it could find a way to rephrase it so whatever wisdom it contained isn't lost. His/her second and third post post demonstrated he/she is fully capable of of writing something both useful, and not quite so obnoxious in tone.



My bullet points in the deleted posts were concrete, actionable, no-nonsense advices I gave to the developer of the program.
-lotusrootstarch (August 12, 2010, 04:39 AM)
--- End quote ---

Perhaps bullet points are what worked the charm?

Hmm...maybe I'll start using more of them in my own posts going forward. ;)

lotusrootstarch:
I am flabbergasted and truly grateful for your most generous offer. I will contact you by PM. Thank you so very much!

Mark
-Markham (August 12, 2010, 06:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

All done. Check your e-mail for details. 2,000,000,000KB monthly allowance. G luck! :)

app103:
What happened is partly my fault (and I am not apologizing for it). I was the one that brought the whole issue to Gothic's attention in a private conversation on IRC.

Since he knows more about the GPL than anyone I know, I wanted to ask him a few questions.

I had downloaded and installed CD a few months ago in order to contribute artwork to the project (see here, here, here, and a work in progress here), and at the time that I originally downloaded it, I looked for the source on the site and could not find it. I was bothered by this because I knew the original version by Eric was GPL licensed. I also noticed that Markham had changed the license to something else I was unfamiliar with.

I even asked Sarge, and was given some story about the Chinese as to why I couldn't have a copy of the source.

It wasn't until I did some more digging after the post about the proposed license changes for v2, that I discovered that the change of license Markham made wasn't compatible with Eric's original GPL license.

This was one of the reasons why I warned him and told him to be careful what he does, or CD could come to an end.

Markham already made one mistake by adding to a GPL project and releasing his versions under the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), which is listed as incompatible with the GPL
 
. That means Markham's license is incompatible with Eric's license, and by all rights, Markham shouldn't have the right to use Eric's GPL'd code in his version of CD.

Please proceed very carefully, or you could put the entire project in jeopardy, and then there will be no more CD for anyone, except for Eric's original version.
--- End quote ---

According to the GPL, if you are not willing to give the source to those that are entitled to it (as a person that downloaded it and installed it, I am entitled to it) then you can't offer the binaries. And if for some reason you can't offer the source because of incompatible licensing issues, you can't offer the program at all.

Gothic confirmed that everything I knew about the GPL was true.

After the announcement that CD was going closed source, and that you had planned on taking down your version and only offering Eric's version on the site, I went back to the site one more time and carefully combed every page looking for the source to v1.5.6, which I am entitled to, before you changed the site, ran off, and it was gone for good. I still could not find it. The more I read from you in this thread, the more I came to realize that you had no intention of honoring Eric's license and allowing those that were entitled to a copy of the source for v1.5.6, to have it.

Now personally, I would rather have had mouser and Gothic talk to you with the end result being that you would comply with the GPL and release the source to the current version under a GPL compatible license, so that those that were entitled to it (myself and anyone that had downloaded the binary) would have access to that source.

I am sorry if you have issues with the Chinese taking the source and modifying it and releasing it as closed source payware, but I had not done that and I had no intentions of doing that. I should not have my right to the source of an open source application denied because you have issues with someone else.

You don't correct a wrong done by someone else by committing an even bigger one yourself. It wasn't right of you to stop the Chinese from violating the GPL by violating the GPL yourself, punishing me and everyone else that downloaded CD in the process.

Now, that being said, I'd still like have a copy of the source to v1.5.6, that I am entitled to, under a GPL compatible license. If you are so worried about honoring Eric's legacy as you have stated so many times before, then do the right thing and honor his wishes and comply with the license of his code.

As I said before:
And if you don't like the GPL license, your only alternative is to not contribute to a GPL project.
--- End quote ---

But once you contribute and release a binary, you have to release the source under a GPL compatible license.

If you think you are the victim here, then consider the fact that what happened only happened because you victimized every CD user, first, the moment you changed the license to Ms-PL and stopped offering the source along with your binaries to all who downloaded CD.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page