Forum: Site News
Topic: DSL v4.4.1
started by: roberts
Posted by roberts on June 17 2008,16:28I have posted a very minor update DSL v.4.4.1
* Fixed dmix mixed font size issue
* Added Firefox desktop icon
Note: The addition of the Firefox desktop icon means that .dfminfo and .dfmdesk/ have changed. These files are likely in your backup.
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,02:46I have pulled DSL v4.4 and V4.4.1 over the murga incident.
I would really like to see the same conditions applied to all users of the murgaLua project.
And that being as quoted by John Murga it is a command line utility.
The direction of his project, his personal public attacks without making private contact, over a derived work made outside the DSL project make any desire to use or promote his project untenable.
I am open to alternate suggestions for a replacement. Perhaps just using fltk with fluid and lua for general scripting. Never mixing the two.
Posted by mikshaw on June 19 2008,03:44I suppose whiptail could be used to provide some sort of script-based interface for some things.
I'm torn, though...I *really* like murgaLua, regardless of the muck that has recently seeped in, and unless some other simple and light script+gui can be found I will continue using it on my own system.
Tcl/Tk is pretty fat, and I haven't found Tcl to be a terribly easy language to pick up, but that's one alternative.
I've seen a few lua bindings and one or two other things for Tk and gtk (gtk-server I think?), but can't tell you much about them.
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,03:48I too really liked the murgaLua interface. Tiny core would have been a great host for promoting it.
But. I was warned about the Puppy connection very early on. I chose murgaLua based on merits and not the assocation. I guess I was wrong.
I still think there is no GPL violation. But at this point, would I want to trust a major portion of my stuff to an individual of that character.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,09:31Whether there was a violation or not, it was the wrong way to handle it. All he had to do was ask what was going on and, if not satisfied, ask that you correct anything he felt was problematic or wrong. The fishy part of it is, he only complained about source and copyright when he felt DSL "butchered" the bindings and he's opposed to that being done. Opposed enough to consider changing the license to prevent it and to say in his forums that he wouldn't "support or condone it."
I looked briefly before I went to bed and only saw a couple things mikshaw mentioned.
< http://lua-users.org/wiki/LibrariesAndBindings >
Are other languages on the table? I know lua is smaller and faster than many others and was chosen for that. I'd hate to see an entire rewrite of scripts just to get the graphical interfaces...
Posted by mikshaw on June 19 2008,12:26Another possibility is to attempt to pick up development of Lua FLTK where Jay Carlson left off several years ago (or attempt to get him interested in updating), but this doesn't sound like a very likely thing.
Tolua is still in development, though, so maybe the process has become easier for the non-programmer.
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,13:04Tolua is something that Florian and I discussed at the very onset of the creation of the shared library.
But given the fact that the selected sources were/are GPL there was no need to reinvent.
Posted by lucky13 on June 19 2008,15:26I agree there's no reason to reinvent wheels. There's also no need to suffer under his or anyone else's tyranny where the license gives us the freedom to use it in whole or in pieces as we see fit so long as we comply with the rest of the requirements of the license.
If florian or whomever wants to fork what Murga has released thus far under GPL, let's do it. Or consider it done already. Let Murga un-GPL whatever he wants in future versions if he so desires (and where it won't conflict with any of the licenses of what he wants to tie together).
Posted by roberts on June 19 2008,15:46I agree. I have posted the relevant section of Florian's README.
A simple, well maybe not too simple, but still, a howto text file to recompile GPL source files, untouched, to create the shared library.
Posted by andrewb on June 20 2008,03:41OK,
to get back on track & away from the murga distraction. I have just noticed mixer-common.lua is still present in etc/init.d. The revised version of dmix doesn't require this. Another 1Kb free (don't spend it all at once!!). This is also true of v4.3 - the current 'current version'.
Posted by jpeters on June 21 2008,08:24
It's so easy to write someone off as being an evil monster of some sort. Look, people have good days, bad days. Sometimes misunderstandings happen. I'm sure JM had high hopes of DSL supporting his project, and felt they abandoned him. The license garbage is probably trivial, and only became an issue due to the (pathetic) interchange. I'm guessing he cares about having his name printed all over the place about as much as you do.
I suppose there's a perverse pleasure in concluding that the other person is of inferior quality to oneself, leaving no recourse but rejection. That's the way of the world, after all. Yeah, it's sad.
BTW, this was all handled in John's mature post...IMHO it should have been left right there.
Posted by lucky13 on June 21 2008,10:26This issue is off topic. This post is my last on the matter.
Do you mean the way others were so openly accused of violating licenses that weren't violated? When does such behavior in its own right become a violation?
Yet Murga never apologizes for his misunderstandings. Nor when he's shown that his code was untouched. Etc.
It's not garbage. I explained in the post to which you replied that I needed to start my own distro why it isn't trivial. It's not trivial from either side of the equation. I didn't attack Murga and I didn't respond to him in the same manner in which he responded. What seemed to irritate him the most is that I picked up what he wrote (repeatedly) about his feelings that the sum of the whole had been refactored so the individual parts were freed for uses more suitable to our needs. I get the fact that his feelings were hurt, and that probably led him to use the license as grounds for lashing out.
Big problem with that. The GPL doesn't protect his feelings. I'm not being a hard @$$ about that. It's a legal document and it doesn't exist for the sake of his or anyone else's ego or psyche. The P in GPL is for *public*, not private. The license protects his rights but it also gives the user a set of rights as well. He isn't free to interpret the P in GPL as "private." It's very obvious to me that he still believes he can do that at his own discretion, that he can attach strings and bitch if the bindings are separated.
With respect to the set of "competing" rights of the license (and contrary to the assertions, implied or otherwise, by others that I might be a little stubborn or one-sided on this issue), I asked Murga to explain specifically what was different from the way things had been done before and what it would take to resolve the issue wrt putting his copyright in a suitable place. He never addressed either issue but instead lashed out at me, at Robert, at the entire community.
On the other side of the equation, it's why I also defended what was done: the license allows the *user* to make the kind of changes that were made over and against any wishes of the developer so long as the other terms of the license are respected -- and at no point has he shown any offense except that his feelings were hurt. Robert posted florian's compile-time changes. Robert posted some of the code Murga claimed was altered; I've posted the full file on a page at my blog (haven't made the page public yet but I'll link it later).
I also posted more about this on my blog yesterday. Like how the SFLC would look at this situation and if they'd have any interest defending users against threats from developers when developers usurp the freedoms they give the users when they put their code under GPL. Whether they would or not doesn't change the fact that Murga chose the GPL and then wants to pull the rug out from users when they exercise their rights in a responsible manner.
Do you mean that in the sense that Murga posted links about reading comprehension instead of dealing with fair questions about what happened and how the GPL allows for that kind of thing to happen? How he inferred that the community was somehow beneath his dignity and he wished he knew what we "where" (sic) like before? Or his implication that DSL needed his permission to use his GPL'ed (*public* license, not private license) code in the first place or even now though Robert has established no changes were made where he suggested?
Or the "perverse pleasure" of stirring up sh*t and then starting a thread in at least one other forum inviting people to watch for their amusement? That's what Murga did instead of handling it in a more productive and mature manner behind the scenes -- it was something that could've been quickly and easily settled if he were so inclined. It's pretty obvious that he wasn't so inclined.
jp, I have a lot of respect for you and others who spoke up. Please don't suggest this was a one-way street or imply that Murga has been victimized in any manner. Murga was NOT wronged in any way or shape or fashion. He's not the one who's been demonized or maligned. He's the one who came here and did that to others.
Look more closely at the other side of it. DSL didn't change code as he said -- but DSL *was* willing to change his code for him to give him more attribution in it than he had coming into this. DSL didn't remove his copyrights, but DSL was more than willing to work with him to put it in suitable places (but not for code he didn't write -- they don't have the latitude to give him props at the invocation of things he did not write). DSL didn't choose his license, he did. DSL didn't write his code, he did. DSL isn't under any obligation to cover his butt but was more than willing to do it. DSL entertained taking care of things for him retroactively even though they only had to abide by what was clearly written on the matter (which was nothing) at the time of the refactoring. Look through the locked thread again and count how many times I raised the question of what was acceptable before the refactoring. Then listen to the crickets chirping...
Like I wrote yesterday, DSL tried to mend a fence they didn't break. DSL has bent over backwards to accommodate him.
Whether DSL chooses to use murgalua in any form -- one of DSL's choosing or as its author insists it be used -- is worthy of discussion, and part of that decision has to include whether it's worth any future hassles with him. He's also publicly mentioned that he may relicense the bindings, which means we'd be stuck with the versions he GPL'ed. So that, too, has to be weighed and the forking option becomes more attractive if he does that. Then the bindings could be used as we see fit and, if anyone is so inclined within our community or beyond it (perhaps there's interest among other lua users), developed and matured so they're even more useful.
Posted by andrewb on June 21 2008,10:43
I (& I suspect many others) really hope you mean this. You have now started spamming another thread - just to get the last word in. Why can't you just drop it & let us get back to moving DSL forward. The licensing issue is one for Robert & JohnA to decide with JohnM. If you don't like what they do you are as free as the rest of us to walk away from it all. Just stop banging on & on about it - go & post it on your own blog if you think anyone is really interested.
Posted by lucky13 on June 21 2008,10:48
I've done no such thing. edit - I addressed a couple points and tried to explain it as objectively as possible. Sorry that bothers you.
edit2... never mind, have it your way. I'll leave you to work on it yourself. Have a nice day.
Posted by roberts on June 21 2008,14:17No. It was jepters who wanted the last word. To try to defend JM.
If JM was rebuffed by his precious Puppy then decides to attack DSL, the one and only one project that was promoting his project.
DSL does not need murgaLua. DSL was using Lua/Fltk before there was a murgaLua.
There was no removal or lack of acknowledments of attributiion to JM. My concluding remarks and posts were to provide documentation to pubically refute JM's claims.
It was JM who wanted this handled pubically. It was JM who attacked. Even after several pleas to move to private email. JM did not. I guess several bad days, perhaps on a warpath to inflict as much damage as possible to the DSL project? And not just here but in other outside forums. Did I got into his forums to provoke?
Even after JA's olive branch, JM wanted more attribution than required by the very license that he chose. Even though that single file, the target of his publically posted infraction.txt, already has attrubtion by way of acknowlegments, referencing the source of murgalualib. JM wanted more; plus strings.
Even after getting "his way" his posts continued to antagonize and provoke. It is JM who wants all future correspondence to be via an "ambassador". So by his very request. Let it be.
Your snide remark about me having my name printout as compared to JM is, well, what can I say. Birds of a feather.
JM actions has caused the DSL project to be in a mess. His actions were uncalled for. Handled in a way that I was pleading to stop. All of this ill will could have prevented.
From the documents that I posted, it is obvoious that they never was anything untoward, nothing removed as claimed, and that attribution was and is in fact already there.
But I guess jpeters is fine with the way JM handled this.
jpeters is fine with the state that the DSL project is currently in.
By jpeters ignoring the locked "it is done" topic post and wanting the last word to defend JM only suggests to me that he would have handled it in the same way. I find that indefensible.