On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 10:12:02AM +1000, David Bannon wrote: > Hi Folks, just to inform you I have not, yet given up on this project. > > I have written to TK, the author or KControls, some five days ago now. I > outlined your concerns about the KControls license and included, with > vague attribution, a few quotes. And asked would he consider a new, more > conventional license. > > So far I have not had an answer, that may be because he considers it > does not need an additional answer, he has already said, on record, that > he considers my proposed use to be acceptable. I have noticed, in the > past, he often ignores questions he considers silly !
Did you ask him if this record can be made public? Maybe that alone could solve it; depending on the exact content, of course. > I will however give him some more time before I abandon the project. > > Remaining hopeful. > > David > > > On 14/9/20 5:21 pm, Tobias Frost wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:49:10AM +1000, David Bannon wrote: > > > > Chiming in… > > > >> *** Daniel's Issues > >> > >>> Also, based on Daniel Hakimi's mail, it sounds like the KControls > >>> author may have illegally changed the license, since there is no > >>> indication in the commit message that they got approval from all the > >>> copyright holders and looking at the git history there are a couple of > >>> other contributors other than Tomas Krysl, but OTOH their contributions > >>> don't appear to be large so maybe they aren't copyrightable. > > Right, (though IANAL and that might be not gloablly the case) > > (I did not check the changes if they are minor or not though) > > > >> Daniel's message is a interesting one. I have sent TK a few 'patches', > >> one or two line bug fixes, that were quietly applied without > >> acknowledgement. I would not, in any way, expect to be classed as an > >> author on the basis of those patches. > >> > >> If Daniel is referring to earlier work than that, well, I cannot > >> comment. TK used to have a blog that offered support and elicited > >> suggestions/bug reports/patches. From memory, it stated that any > >> contribution to the blog implied assigning ownership. I certainly > >> regarded it as working like that. > > Is this archived e.g on the WayBackMachine? > > > >> And, no Daniel, the email discussion I had with TK about the license > >> occurred just before the KControls moved to github. While I have the > >> emails on record, they were sent in confidence and I intend to respect > >> that confidence. > > Can you ask if those mails can be released? Private mails won't help > > in the matter, only whati's in the public can be referred to. > > > >> Daniel, I agree, life would be a lot easier if everyone used standard, > >> acceptable licenses. However, sadly, they do not. > > Sorry, did not follow too closely this thread but, have you asked them? > > > > I see an additional problem with the license: Beside being implicit only > > on modifcations, it is the same way implicit when it comes to distribution. > > Making those explicit permission would help; Especially distribution, > > because > > without, you can not even go to non-free.* > > > > It would really help the case if upstream switches to some well-known > > license. > > > >> I personally think I am definitely using kcontrols in a manner approved > >> by TK and doing so mostly consistent with its stated license. However, > >> if its felt by your good selves that TK himself is not in a position to > >> determine license issues, then its a deal breaker. If you think the > >> current model is untenable, please say so, I need to advise my end > >> users, who are requesting the Debian incorporation, of this fact. > > IMHO we usually trust upstreams; unless we do have reasons not > > to trust upstream… > > On the other side. cooporation from upstream would help to dismiss those > > concerns. > > >
