User Feedback :: Usage of murgaLua by DSL



Quote (chaostic @ 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?

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.

Cheers
JohnM
John 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.
I 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.

Without prejudice
JohnM
Quote (roberts @ ,)
DSL was and is promoting murgaLua.
It seems that Murga may be correct about GPL section 3, as it states "Accompany it with". I have not seen DSL 4.4 yet, but I have never seen any actual written notice within DSL that offers sources for anything. Perhaps "accompany" is not necessarily the same as "include", though.

Quote (chaostic @ ,)
Wait, isn't the mugralua bindings that dsl uses mostly un-interactive?
I was thinking the same thing.  Since it has been (I assume) made into a Lua module, it is Lua itself that is interactive. I don't understand how the modules work, though, so I'm just guessing.

Quote (JohnMurga @ ,)
It is intelectual property theft ... I take that seriously.
"Intellectual Property" is a myth perpetuated by commercial software vendors as a way to protect profits.  Information is intangible and cannot be owned.

Quote (JohnMurga @ ,)
I was hoping to calm down by engaging the community, but lucky has ensured that didn't happen.
He has that effect on many of us from time to time =o)

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
Quote
but that it was redistributed without including the original copyright notice or written offer to supply the source.
See page one of this thread, my first questions to Murga. I asked him specifically what the problem was. His doing this isn't about the GPL or compliance with it -- else there wouldn't be whining about "butchering" or "molesting" or otherwise being hurt that others would do something he doesn't support or condone. That's clear from everything that he's written here, on his forums, and at puppy.
Next Page...
original here.