1. New restrictions in libraries?
- Posted by DB James <larch at adelphia.net>
Aug 09, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 10, 2005
Hi all,
Juergen Luethje has posted another edition of his long filenames support
library. The only change is a new license that contains these provisions:
<Begin quoted material>
Without express written permission from the author, you are *not*
allowed to include any of the files *physically* in another file.
You also must not modify any of the files. This means, among other things,
that you are not allowed to rename the files, or split them into pieces.
3. Distribution
You may distribute the files "Lfn.e" and/or "file_ln.e" with your
programs, as long as this file ("Lfn_lice.txt") is distributed unchanged
in the same package.
<End quoted material>
This is probably an unfortunate reaction to a file submitted by me. Not only do
I regret the ill-feeling I accidently caused, I doubly regret seeing anyone make
such restrictions in an Eu library.
Due to Juergens's original reaction, and to a two messages from Kat, I had
already re-written Mash.ex to leave in all comments in all the code. I have
already created a new mashed Eu program (a file formatter) with all author
information left intact that I have not uploaded yet. In short, there would have
been no problem again. I had responded to legitimate concerns that credit would
be listed regarding their code, as I have always believed it should.
Really, there are few problems that simple communication cannot solve, and I
wish it had happened here.
--Quark
2. Re: New restrictions in libraries?
- Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com>
Aug 09, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 10, 2005
Hi again Quark,
Did you make any progress with the namespace issues?
Take care,
Al
And, good luck with your Euphoria programming!
My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
3. Re: New restrictions in libraries?
DB James wrote:
<snip>
> Really, there are few problems that simple communication cannot solve,
> and I wish it had happened here.
So I wonder why you didn't do so.
When I told you that it's not OK to use my LFN library with my name
removed, a "simple" reaction by you would have been to reply something
like: "Ooops, sorry!", and then immediately fix the issue.
You did not change your program on the User Contributions page for days,
but you wrote a weird reply instead
(and even when your post to which I'm replying here arrived at me
[2005-08-09, 22:55 UTC], there was still the same unchanged version of
your program on the RDS website).
So firstly removing my name from my library, *and* then reacting this
way -- which was kind of the contrary of "simple" -- actually
made me change the license. It seems to be necessary to prevent some
people from doing strange things with the library.
Regards,
Juergen
4. Re: New restrictions in libraries?
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> DB James wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Really, there are few problems that simple communication cannot solve,
> > and I wish it had happened here.
>
> So I wonder why you didn't do so.
>
> When I told you that it's not OK to use my LFN library with my name
> removed, a "simple" reaction by you would have been to reply something
> like: "Ooops, sorry!", and then immediately fix the issue.
>
> You did not change your program on the User Contributions page for days,
> but you wrote a weird reply instead
> (and even when your post to which I'm replying here arrived at me
> [2005-08-09, 22:55 UTC], there was still the same unchanged version of
> your program on the RDS website).
>
> So firstly removing my name from my library, *and* then reacting this
> way -- which was kind of the contrary of "simple" -- actually
> made me change the license. It seems to be necessary to prevent some
> people from doing strange things with the library.
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
Hello Juergen,
I should have read this message first, it does explain some things to me.
My intent here is to respond in the most useful way possible. It is a notorious
fact that email-style communication is a mine-field of ways to go wrong in
communication. Looking back on my admittedly inadequate first response, and my
leaving the program intact too long (yes, I see I should have deleted it or
modified it immediately), I think I see how it happened. Your first reply
obviously assumed my actions were a deliberate thing, and the tone of the
communication was accusatory. I was astonished, and responded defensively in
trying to explain how I had proceeded.
It was in communicating with Kat that I really understood what the issues were,
and what I must do. I focused on fixing the problem in Mash.ex, but was stymied
when you changed the licensing on your library.
In sum, let's try to assume the best about others, and fix the problems as they
arise. I'll do this better in the future. Live and learn...
--Quark
