DonationCoder.com Software > Circle Dock

Goodbye all, I'm out of here effective immediately

<< < (7/16) > >>

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)
--- End quote ---

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)
--- End quote ---

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)
--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page