gnupic: Re: gpal fork (fwd)
Subject:
Re: gpal fork (fwd)
From:
Scott Dattalo ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2004 14:50:01 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403100616260.28426-100000@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Craig has asked me to forward his response to pic00.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 10 Mar 2004 08:11:57 -0600
From: Craig Franklin ####@####.####
To: Scott Dattalo ####@####.####
Cc: pic00 ####@####.####
Subject: Re: gpal fork
Scott can you please forward this to the list. My ISP is still black
listed and they don't seem to care.
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 03:04, pic00 wrote:
> +++
> the responses:
>
> > The source tree is removed from the disk's.
> > If someone want a copy of it, it's can be requested to recive a backup
> > copy until the end of this month.
>
>
> I don't recall if you're talking about GPL source or not.
> +++
> The License will be LGPL.
>
You need to be a little more specific. gputils is GPL. What software
is LGPL? From the beginning, you said your stuff would be closed source.
> It's suggest it, but the licence don't matter. The final product is a
> case tool for micro programming (not only pic micro). The so called
> oogpal is only a (open source) backend on the whole software that is
> integrated into other backends. Small C for the lite version, C for the
> full and so on. The SW uses other open source Software (scripting
> engine, data exchange interfaces) and free available (source) licensed
> SW and it's clearly marked out in the planned manual and in the SW. To
> most authors or copyright holder is establisht a email correspondece.
> The agreement differ from case to case, from coding certain parts,
> sponsoring coding or paying a on time licence fee or donation if the
> product start up.Personlly I have contributed to many open source project.
All of this would have been good to know up front.
> Crayg have trasmitted a certain angry of using his software or part in a
> commercial product.
I never said I was angry. In fact, I directly emailed you to say that I
wasn't.
Perhaps you should reread my original message to this list. Although, I
wasn't happy about the fork, I agreed that you were within your rights
to do it. I was willing to support your commercial project as long as
you compensated me for the work.
> Initially 10-30% of the orginal software was planned
> to use.The software in the actual state it's not functionally compared
> to the specification of the Author (Crayg). After a detailed analysis
> including precoding, 8% (400-700 lines of bison code) is left over from
> the orginal code or modifyed orginal. The percentual values is related
> to the amount of orginal source code, not the new one.
> After a disput with Craig, and viewd the amount of orginal code,
> one have advanced the propose to recoding it from scatch and don't use
> the open source code.
Dispute?
You never provided me with a complete listing of your changes. You sent
me one small patch. I disagreed with few things I saw based on
portability, coding style, and a mismatch of our goals. I stated on
more than one occasion that you have some good ideas. From my
perspective, we were privately negotiating what would and wouldn't be
committed to gputils.
You have to expect a discussion. You wanted to make fundamental changes
to the software. I am not going to commit every change someone sends me
without considering the consequences.
> The other thing, is, that Craig have given opposite answer to us and to
> the mailing list or private mail into the mailing list and that hi ...
How exactly have I given opposite answers? You must finish a statement
like this, "..." is insufficient.
My position on this topic has not changed. Perhaps you are confusing
other peoples responses on this subject with mine.
> After that, I have annunciate a new fork on the list and telled the
> question, if someone is interrested.
> I have not got any real positive response from the mailing list.
> Why try to post and support a open source pice of software that noone
> wants or that it's not used?.
8% open source :)
> This was the reason to abbandone the open source version of oopal
> (name will be changed) and close/disapper the sources from the open
> source community.Open source is not only open the source but support it,
> document it, advertise it, share it ... .
> For a certain amount of time, we give the possibility to request the
> source if somene will test it or make somewath with it ( respecting the
> licence LGPL or GPL)
>
Before this message was sent, I thought we were parting on good terms.
It is apparent that there are some hard feelings.
The next time you approach a developer about using his code, I suggest
you provide a concise statement of your goals and intentions. Then in
the beginning, you can figure out the best approach.
>>From my perspective, I have a thread of messages with different lists of
changes. It was hard for me to understand what would be in the final
version and the final scope of the changes.
This exercise has consumed a lot of time for both of us. There have
been many misunderstandings and I don't understand why. Hopefully,
future communications between us will be better.
I wish you the best of luck in your business pursuits.
