Goodbye all, I'm out of here effective immediately

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

[mouser]

Markham,

Part of what pains me about this episode is that i have tried hard to be supportive of the original circle dock, and the work you did on it, and the efforts sgtevmckay made on it's behalf. sgtev and i have had so many good talks about it and i've always tried hard to encourage him and praise him for his efforts and be supportive on behalf of the dc community.  i think you guys did a real service by reviving what seemed to be an abandoned project with many users who were hoping for improvements.  i think it was great what you did in improving it, and tried to say so and provide help and encouragement wherever possible.

At some point the download bandwidth on the member server for circle dock started to get very high, and it seemed like something was misconfigured with the member server that was making this problem much worse, and we couldn't figure out how to fix that.  I asked you guys to see if you could find some alternative hosting for the big exe that was causing all the bandwidth -- at least temporarily so we could see for sure whether the bandwidth was really coming from legit downloads or from some foul-up with the server.  we had long talks about this many months ago -- it wasn't part of some plan to hurt you guys, it was simply a matter of wanting to prepare for a worst case scenario where the member server was not going to be able to host the files without running out of allocated bandwidth.  We discussed the many sites that will provide free hosting for the file, and if i thought that you wouldn't be able to find easy free hosting and would have to pay for hosting i would have worked harder with you to find another solution.

I wish you well in whatever direction you take your project and i have no ill will.  It's unfortunate that this whole episode has gotten so out of control because i continue to hope that once you get some perspective from all this you're going to realize that not only have we attempted to do you no wrong, but that quite the contrary we've tried to be supportive of you the whole time -- and the more dramatic this episode gets, the harder it may be for that to happen.  In that vein i'd ask that you not delete your old posts, which causes real confusion to readers, but feel free to edit them to add information that you feel is appropriate.

Ok let's try to wrap this up and get back to normal stuff.. I'd ask everyone to keep respectful and continue posting only if you feel like there is something new you really have to add.  I'll do the same.

[edit] note to mods: as well-meaning as you may be, please refrain from deleting posts for any other reason than if they are spam; even if you find a post offensive, deleting it usually makes the situation worse, and sometimes you just need to let people vent.

[40hz]

Rather than speculate on what is and isn't allowed in this scenario, I've contacted FSF about exactly what the obligations and options are for this particular case.

From my understanding of GPL3 the following is how it's going to work:

• As long as the binaries to CD are no longer being distributed, there is no obligation for Mark to personally continue providing the source code.
  
• As author (or co-author) of much of the current code, Mark holds copyright on what he's written.
  
• If he removes what is left of Mr. Wong's original code from his current codebase, he is free to relicense what is left however he wishes.
  
• But even so (since a GPL licensed product incorporating his code has already been released) his contributed code (up to that point) is also bound by the terms of the GPL - which means there is nothing that can be done to anybody who avails themselves of sharing/selling/distributing either the source or the binaries already in their possession. Such activities are specifically allowed under the terms of the GPL - which cannot be revoked after the fact.
  
• The fact that his code was once released under GPL will make it difficult for any future versions of his program to invoke protection under IP laws since it would be necessary to establish exactly which lines of code and what program features were originally released under GPL - and which were not. (Attorneys love stuff like that.) This is not to say Mark can't try. But it has become immeasurably more difficult for him to do so with GPL lurking in CD's past.
  
• And finally, irregardless of what Mark does, the only person who could possibly make legal trouble for him over GPL is the original copyright holder, Mr. Eric Wong. But since Eric has gone missing, Mark is at no more risk of real legal action (no matter what he does) than are the people who are illegally using CD's code in their closed commercial products.

Not being an attorney, I wanted to confirm my educated guesses with FSF. Unfortunately the person I really need to talk to is out at conference and will be unavailable to chat with me until sometime next week.

I will stay on top of this, and let people know what FSF has to say about all this.


----
@Markham: I know it's hard to remain calm when you've tried to play by the rules of GPL and other people not only aren't - but are defying you to do anything about it. But please don't let your understandable anger and frustration with the situation make you see enemies where there aren't any. Maybe not everybody at DoCo is agreeing with what you're saying. But that does not mean your work was unappreciated, or that anybody has any less respect for your feelings or opinions despite their possible disagreement with them.

So be angry. It's understandable. I'd be absolutely livid if I were in the same boat. But please try not to let any justifiable anger get out of control and cause you to interpret what looks to me like a comedy of errors - and some misread (or possible missing) communications with DoCo's administration - as an effort to ignore your concerns or hurt you in any way.

We're all friends here. And I think Mouser and the rest of us have done as much as we can to let you know we all still consider you one of them. Now it's up to you.

Either way, I personally wish you all the best in whatever you decide to do.  

[lotusrootstarch]

App, I generally agree with your opinion on GPL and the potential right to the source code. But please keep in mind copyright law is not the holy grail of IP protection and GPL can be just as evil as it is virtuous. In the eyes of many, GPL is just a bible distributed from a Church.

What is your plan with the source code if secured? Distribute it?

May I ask what is the point of this insistence on forcing a generous coder, who has already given so much for free to so many people at large, to give up the source code of his IP, to potentially give up this project to the many out there who are ever-ready to abuse it, to kiss good-bye to a personal pride, to relinquish a retirement hobby, to leave out a source of income, so that FSF can be satisfied with the "compliance"?

I wonder how gratitude is defined towards a person who revived a dead project and has been revitalizing tirelessly it for the continual benefit of so so many.

As opposed to big corp GPL-related scandals, this is a case which, I'd argue, is for the utilitarian convenience of most and should be whole-heartedly supported as it is regardless of licensing technicalities.

Just don't go too technical because you have a reference book at hand:

• You don't file a suit against yourself for your past/current copyright violations because people around you commit these offenses every now and then, nobody cares. Technically, who knows any one of us probably should be serving terms already.
• Police don't charge everyone with offense by the book, there's always a human factor
• Lisay Lohan didn't stay 90 days in jail... she was supposed to.

Give them a break. Move on.

@40hz:
Thanks for the enlightenment.

[app103]

But even so (since a GPL licensed product incorporating his code has already been released) his contributed code (up to that point) is also bound by the terms of the GPL - which means there is nothing that can be done to anybody who avails themselves of sharing/selling/distributing either the source or the binaries already in their possession. Such activities are specifically allowed under the terms of the GPL - which cannot be revoked after the fact.
[/li][/list]

-40hz (August 12, 2010, 09:26 AM)

And that is where the problem is. He changed the license to Ms-PL and offered no source code to anyone that downloaded the binaries, which still contain Eric's GPL licensed code. Even if it's only very little code, it's still in there.

I downloaded it in May, it is supposed to be open source, and I still do not have a copy of the source. Instead of the source I got excuses about the Chinese violating the GPL and that's why I can't have a copy.

What is your plan with the source code if secured? Distribute it?

-lotusrootstarch (August 12, 2010, 09:48 AM)

Possibly, possibly not. Maybe I'll pass it along to someone else that would be willing to continue development on it and keep it free and open source. Maybe I'll pass it on to someone that might learn something from the code. Maybe I'll learn something from it. Maybe I'll make some changes for my own use and never distribute it....or distribute it with the source. Maybe I'll give a copy to Eric if he ever turns back up. Maybe it will just sit on my hard drive till I die of old age.  It doesn't matter what I do with the code once I have it, as long as what I do complies with the GPL. I would not expect Markham to live up to the license and then not do the same myself.

May I ask what is the point of this insistence on forcing a generous coder, who has already given so much for free to so many people at large, to give up the source code of his IP, to potentially give up this project to the many out there who are ever-ready to abuse it, to kiss good-bye to a personal pride, to relinquish a retirement hobby, to leave out a source of income, so that FSF can be satisfied with the "compliance"?

-lotusrootstarch (August 12, 2010, 09:48 AM)

Markham knew it was a GPL licensed project when he got involved with it. Nobody forced him to contribute a single line of code. He did that of his own free will, knowing he would have to supply the source. And now he wants to play victim when someone wants him to comply with the GPL and provide the source that they are entitled to.

This isn't about satisfying the FSF, it's about satisfying the wishes of the original developer, and the users, in which I am one of them. It's about having some integrity, which Markham seems to have decided to compromise for the sake of money. The support from this community isn't good enough for him. The money donated by members that don't even use CD isn't good enough for him. He really doesn't appreciate the donations of anyone that gave him money to support the project but never used it, and as someone that has supported many projects for things I do not use, I find that kind of insulting.

We responded to his generosity with our own generosity, but while we were willing to give all we could because we appreciated his contributions, he held back...held back one thing he should have been giving every step along the way...the source. He is no better than the Chinese that released closed source versions for profit. There really is no difference between himself and them, as long as one single line of GPL code is in it.

And finally, if he's working so hard on this, all by himself, it could be because he won't allow anyone else to contribute. How can they if they can't even get a copy of the source to this open source project?

And nobody knows better than me how hard it is to develop software and give it away, never receiving enough back to be able to adequately continue development. Even when my computer died and I couldn't afford to fix or replace it, and was forced to use a 12 yr old WinME machine with 64mb RAM on 33.6k dialup as my only computer for most of 2008, using an 9 yr old outdated IDE that my machine didn't even meet the min specs required to run it, trying to support OS versions I couldn't run or test on, with my stomach grumbling because I could barely afford food. Did I get bitter? Did I threaten to turn all my software into payware? Maybe privately I thought about it, maybe among friends I may have even mentioned it, but despite feeling like my situation was so hopeless that I wanted to GPL all my projects, shut down my pc and just walk away for good, I never told my users that. I may have given less as a developer during that time, but I still gave all that I could.

I am grateful to mouser, DC and the entire community, whole heatedly, because without their support, I would not have made it though that difficult time, would not have a website today, and would still be using that outdated IDE. My daughter bought me a beautiful Dell as a gift and I received as a gift from mouser and DC a copy of BDS 2006 leftover from the C++ Builder contest. It's not the latest and greatest but it's a whole lot better than the Delphi 6 I had. This is something I could never have afforded in a million years. And this year's NANY project will be my first developed entirely with that IDE.

I have seen how supportive this community can be when you let them. They will go out of their way to do whatever they can to help. Help was offered to Markham in many ways. Lots of helpful suggestions from putting the project on Sourceforge, to obtaining mirrors for hosting the binaries. Nobody had anything against him removing the GPL code and going shareware. I don't have anything against him doing that. But I still believe that the current version with the GPL code in it should have had the source available all along, and I'd still like a copy of that source.

[wraith808]

I was going to quote and respond to a lot of different snippets, but I figured I'd summarize in one thought.

To the people who are crying foul at the lack of source for a downloaded version of CD, would you rather *not* have the downloaded version and him have removed all possibilities of getting CD at the point that he decided not to give source?  He hasn't made any money as far as I can see on the version that has been downloaded since then, so it would seem to be the simplest solution to your quandry is to delete the binaries and pretend that he didn't release them.

Yes, that last part is a bit facetious, but this whole insistence that the people who downloaded CD are the victims is quite the spurious argument, considering the alternative IMO.

[Markham]

It's about having some integrity, which Markham seems to have decided to compromise for the sake of money. The support from this community isn't good enough for him. The money donated by members that don't even use CD isn't good enough for him. He really doesn't appreciate the donations of anyone that gave him money to support the project but never used it, and as someone that has supported many projects for things I do not use, I find that kind of insulting.

-app103 (August 12, 2010, 11:40 AM)

You may think what you wish but do not expect me to allow you to write such contentious nonsense in this Forum without some form of strongly-worded response.

How dare you accuse me of (effectively) abandoning my integrity for the sake of money. Who the hell do you think you are to make such baseless accusations? You seem to have selective memory: I have publicly thanked all those who so generously donated to me personally, not once, not twice, but several times. Just so you're aware, your donation - if I were to receive it - would pay for one-fifth of one day's Internet connection charges - that's right, I have to pay the equivalent of $150 per month for a stable connection here. I have not made one penny from Circle Dock - rather it has cost me a considerable sum of money to date.

Since January, there have been literally hundreds of thousands of Circle Dock downloads. Strangely enough, not one of the more than three-quarters of a million downloaders have contacted either the Sarge or I regarding the source code. You say you downloaded Circle Dock in May but only this week have you made any mention of the fact. I would suggest to you that you didn't give its absence a second thought until you read of the new license provisions this week and you're now doing so to stir-up trouble and make me - and the Sarge - to be the bad guys here. It won't work.



Mark

[app103]

$150 a month for a stable connection for what? To host the Circle Dock site? I don't remember mouser charging you a dime for hosting. I remember him providing that for free.

You are crying that the users are not covering your monthly internet bill? They don't cover mine either, and mine is quite cheap and unstable. I am lucky if they cover the cost of renewing my domain names each year.

Today I received my first donation in months. And it was a whopper sized one, too...a whole $10.

Put that with the rest of the donations I received this year, none of which had anything to do with my software, and I am only about $70 short of the amount I need to renew my 4 domain names at the end of next month. Wait, make that $71, since I did donate to you, along with an explanation of why I gave you the amount I did. It's the same amount I have given plenty of others, along with the same reason. And you know what I said is 100% true.

Just so you're aware, your donation - if I were to receive it - would pay for one-fifth of one day's Internet connection charges - that's right, I have to pay the equivalent of $150 per month for a stable connection here.

I didn't give you enough? You want more from me? You want one of the domain names that I won't be able to afford to renew? Don't make me feel bad for giving you anything at all.

And I did ask sarge about the source back in May. That was when I got the "Markham decided that nobody can have it because of the Chinese" excuse. It has been bugging me ever since, and yes, bugging me more after reading your recent announcement.

I am a digital packrat and an archivist. Anyone that knows me well knows I collect stuff most people do not. I have a museum of forgotten software on my hard drive, Tons of stuff you probably never heard of and versions that are near impossible to find. I have one of the largest repositories of 3rd party code related to the WinMX network, including an MXchat Delphi component that nobody else but the developer and myself has a copy of (and I am not even sure if she has a copy any more). I have the tweet histories of the 100 most popular twitter users in CSV, along with screenshots of their profiles, a copy of the background file, and a copy of their avatar, enough to rebuild an important part of twitter for posterity should it ever disappear. Why do I collect this stuff? Because some day someone might need it or have a good use for it, even if I never will.

I didn't ask for the source because I want to make money off it. I didn't ask for the source because I want to stir up trouble. I asked for it because I want to add it to that collection before you disappear off into payware land with the code for what should be an open source project. And if bringing up the topic is stirring up trouble, it's only because you violated the GPL and didn't provide it to everyone that downloaded it. You even went so far as contacting a lawyer to discuss your chances of getting away with violating the GPL.

Don't tell me you didn't know it was a GPL project. And don't tell me that you didn't know that open source means you have to provide the source. You knew all along, and you knew that withholding the source was wrong. How could you not?

I would suggest to you that you didn't give its absence a second thought until you read of the new license provisions this week and you're now doing so to stir-up trouble and make me - and the Sarge - to be the bad guys here. It won't work.

-Markham (August 12, 2010, 02:18 PM)

Sarge is not the bad guy here. You are. And I am not trying to make you the bad guy. You succeeded in doing that yourself. And for as long as I do not have the source that I am entitled to, under a GPL compatible license, you will continue to be the bad guy in my mind, in the minds of anyone that believes in open source, and in the minds of anyone that has any respect for the original wishes of Eric Wong who released his source under a GPL license. And if I never get the source then you will be the bad guy forever. It does work. You make it work.




Clarification: When I said this year's donations didn't cover the cost of my domain names, I was not stating that I could not afford to renew them. I have enough to cover it, because I am smart enough not to spend all my donation credits foolishly, and I keep a reserve amount in there for situations like this. Combined with the generosity of a few that read this post, I have now received enough this year to cover it. Do not worry, the renewals are not a problem. Thank you very much. 

[Archon of Fate]

come on Markham and App, calm down... this whole situation will not be resolved through mudslinging and insults. let us come to a compromise... anger is understandable on both sides but I know all to well what damage it can do to a situation... let us just walk away from this for a little while and approach it with a fresh angle later

[Tuxman]

According to the GPL v1, v2 and v3, even if one single line in an application is licensed under the GPL, the whole application has to be GPL-licensed. Any other use is illegal.

[sgtevmckay]

come on Markham and App, calm down... this whole situation will not be resolved through mudslinging and insults. let us come to a compromise... anger is understandable on both sides but I know all to well what damage it can do to a situation... let us just walk away from this for a little while and approach it with a fresh angle later

-Archon of Fate (August 12, 2010, 06:27 PM)

I believe AoF Has spoken well here.
I am almost, almost, of the opinion that there is nothing further gained, and constructive thought and criticism has apparently gone on some sort of vacation!

To the point that when I went to bed things were "OK" and when I wake up this morning I was the enemy of fun, and the harbinger of censorship.

I really want to rant and rave at many of you for your inconsideration towards my actions and not even considering the "Why" of the actions taken. I find that I am very disturbed by how quickly folks in the community were to condemn action without proper knowledge of the situation.
This is not many nor in the majority, but I have come to the stunning conclusion of  "What's the point?"
It would almost seem that there are some elements that want nothing more than a fight or to express themselves in some incoherent manner, where the meaning of their position becomes lost in their fervor of the moment.

Yes; I have locked some posts, and these will remain locked, as I feel that continuing these conversations is not in the best interest of the community, and may be subject to certain forms of scrutiny that may not be wanted in our community.
I even had Mouser restore the comments that I had deleted.

I honestly thought that we were better, that DC is Better, that as a community we are all better.
better than one incident condemning me, better than one person leaving and going his own way would leave behind such anger, Better than reducing ourselves to petty pissing matches.

Are we not better???

Things were being learned and explored yesterday, and today it is little different than watching some of those damned Political Commercials!
It would be Better if this post could be locked, but I will not do this, as apparently it is more important that such hate and discontent continues, rather than identifying that all there is to be learned has been learned, and drawing a line in the sand that says; This is enough!

I feel we should all be better and above a lot of this, all of us.

This is my final post on this thread, as I feel there is nothing more to be gained but further antagonism.
This is not what DC is about!

[wraith808]

According to the GPL v1, v2 and v3, even if one single line in an application is licensed under the GPL, the whole application has to be GPL-licensed. Any other use is illegal.

-Tuxman (August 12, 2010, 06:32 PM)

And it's not being released anymore... so why the continued harping on that?  He didn't make any money off of it- what happened was a few people got binaries that they otherwise wouldn't have... why can't it be simply left at that?  Why all of the finger pointing and calling people bad guys?  The way forward from here is not to release CD anymore without source... that's been done.  And if he releases again to remove GPL code.  Check on that also.  So why the continued antagonism?  I'm sure if he could go back and just not release the binaries, that he would rather than deal with this.  But that's not a possibility.  So why the name calling to get someone to do something that he doesn't want to do, and release work that he has done at no cost?  Just so you can feel better about some useless point?

[Tuxman]

And it's not being released anymore... so why the continued harping on that?

-wraith808 (August 12, 2010, 08:19 PM)

Team Circle Dock will take the program forward, as a fully non-GPL semi-commercial product, and likely to be under Microsoft's BizNet umbrella.

-Markham (August 12, 2010, 06:16 AM)

Follow the thread first.

[lotusrootstarch]

And it's not being released anymore... so why the continued harping on that?

-wraith808 (August 12, 2010, 08:19 PM)

Team Circle Dock will take the program forward, as a fully non-GPL semi-commercial product, and likely to be under Microsoft's BizNet umbrella.

-Markham (August 12, 2010, 06:16 AM)

Follow the thread first.

-Tuxman (August 12, 2010, 08:23 PM)

That's right. More than often you'll find OSS is just a zero-sum game. The only way we can move forward, in this case, is to dismiss the pettiness and political dramas, remove GPL code from the product, and release it under commercial license.

A dedicated team committed to supporting its users and coding successful software is obviously above and beyond what some have been advocating here in this thread. Let's call an end to this drama, cease the antagonism, leave these folks alone and you might be surprised what they'll come up with.

[mouser]

i think all sides have made their cases, and agree it's time to move on.

[wraith808]

And it's not being released anymore... so why the continued harping on that?

-wraith808 (August 12, 2010, 08:19 PM)

Team Circle Dock will take the program forward, as a fully non-GPL semi-commercial product, and likely to be under Microsoft's BizNet umbrella.

-Markham (August 12, 2010, 06:16 AM)

Follow the thread first.

-Tuxman (August 12, 2010, 08:23 PM)

I already did.  They will take the GPL code out of it, and release their version of the product.  It's already been stated there's not a problem with that.  The one with the GPL code has been taken down.  As you said, follow the thread first.

[Tuxman]

Well, I must have misread something then, but the latest thing I've read was "well, it's about 10% anyway, so what?". Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Cpilot]

You know I've been reading this thread with a mixture of amusement and sadness at the same time and it just reinforces something that I've believed for a while.
So I'm going to take a moment and go off topic just a little bit.
The GPL itself is stupid and evil.
There I said it......if someone releases their code into the wild it's naive to believe, no matter how it's licensed, that some one....somewhere...will not create derivative works from it.
Even if that code inspires someone to go in a completely different direction from what it was initially created to do the inclusion of one line allows others to claim some kind of infringement and stifles further creativity based upon whatever minuscule amount of GPL code used as a base.
IMO any code that is released into the wild should have one, and only one, restriction....and that is that some acknowledgement be made to the originator for any derivative works springing from it.

Because all the GPL does in my experience is cause these kinds of melt downs.

My 2 cents.

[Tuxman]

In theory it's easy:
If you want to make money, don't use stuff licensed under the GPL.

A counter-example:
Adobe Photoshop is non-free software, however anyone - anywhere - will distribute free copies of it to the general public. So is it pointless to say "it is commercial software"?

[Markham]

Well, I must have misread something then, but the latest thing I've read was "well, it's about 10% anyway, so what?". Sorry if I misunderstood.

-Tuxman (August 12, 2010, 10:11 PM)

If that's how you perceived my words, then it is I who should apologise for the lack of clarity in my post. The version that was available until 2 days ago contains around 10% original GPL code and I'm in the process of rewriting that part so that there will be no GPL code whatsoever in any future versions I release.


--------------------------------


The last week or so have been trying for all of us and particularly so for those of us closest to the problem. Whether we agree on issues or not, I want to thank you all for your input, advice and for posting your concerns. If there have been any shortcomings on my part, then I apologise for those. If I appear to have lost my temper with some of you, then I'm sorry; I didn't mean to.

Many of you have offered good advice and I am very grateful for that.

I especially want to thank "lotusrootsearch" whose incredible generosity means Circle Dock's future in both GPL and non-GPL (advanced) versions is assured. The GPL version, with full source code, will continue to be both hosted and supported here. There is, however, a caveat: Eric Wong's source archive (and binaries) does contain proprietary (non-GPL) units (DLLs) for which source code is not (and can not) be provided.

After an almost four-hour IM session with the Sarge last night (my time), I have agreed to remove some of the bugs in Eric Wong's preview release (v0.9.2 Alpha 8.2) to make it a stable release and this, with the source code, will be available via this Forum (and Circle Dock's home page at wikidot) as soon as I have time. We do not have access to the Circle Dock Project page on SourceForge so are unable to update there. We will also re-release Eric Wong's last stable release (v0.9.1) in both binary and source forms. I hope you will understand that my main thrust will be geared to the semi-commercial (100% non-GPL code) version which will be hosted elsewhere, therefore the time available for the GPL version will be somewhat restricted: but I will do my best.

Some time over the next few days, I will post a technical note with an overview of the inner workings of the GPL'd version for the benefit of all who download and want to play around with the source code.

I hope you all find this compromise both acceptable and appealing.



Mark

[Markham]

Adobe Photoshop is non-free software, however anyone - anywhere - will distribute free copies of it to the general public. So is it pointless to say "it is commercial software"?

-Tuxman (August 12, 2010, 10:42 PM)

Interesting you should mention Adobe. It is a founder member of FAST - the Federation Against Software Theft - which has had some notable successes in prosecuting individuals and organisations found to be distributing software illegally.



Mark