I'm starting yet another project, and this one is about unit-testing. Here are some of my ideas. It is in the CVS in /abstractions/pureunity/
------------------8<--------cut-here--------8<------------------ PureUnity
Copyright 2006 by Mathieu Bouchard <matju à artengine point ca>
$Id: README,v 1.2 2005/12/29 18:47:56 matju Exp $
+-+-+--+---+-----+--------+-------------+---------------------+ GOALS
1. To provide a unit-test framework, which also provide benchmarking features, all made in Pd for use in Pd.
2. To provide tests for functionality in internals, externals, abstractions, etc., in a modularized way, in a DRY/OAOO fashion, thus abstracting out common features so that many objects share the same test patch for the features that they have in common.
+-+-+--+---+-----+--------+-------------+---------------------+ TEST PROTOCOL
new: create common (reusable) fixtures.
inlet 0: bang: run all available tests in that class. individual tests don't have to be available through individual methods but may. If they do, the names of the methods must match those given in the test results.
each test should build its own non-reusable fixtures and reinitialize common fixtures, not assuming that the previous tests have left the common fixtures in a normal state.
outlet 0: test results. a sequence of lists like: list $name $passed? $accuracy $elapsed for example: list
where: $name is a symbol $passed? is either 0 for failure or 1 for success $accuracy is a float proportional to relative error on math (if not applicable, use 0) $elapsed is a float, the time elapsed in milliseconds or it is the symbol "-" if not measured.
+-+-+--+---+-----+--------+-------------+---------------------+ SEVERITIES (in decreasing order)
* crash: Segmentation Fault, Bus Error, Illegal Instruction, Infinite Loop, etc. You can't deal with those errors at the level of the tests. Maybe there should be a way to tell a test object to skip certain tests, by name, in order to be able to perform as many tests as possible while waiting for a fix. It could become possible to rescue from some of those crashes if Pd supported exceptions (stack-unwinding).
* corruption: this may cause future crashes and failures on innocent objects/features. I have no solution for this except to be careful.
* post(),error(),pd_error(): Gets printed in the console. The problem is that those can't be handled by the test objects, so someone has to read them and interpret them. Also they prevent test objects to ensure that error conditions produce error messages.
* pd_error2(): I wish this would exist. It would be sort of like pd_error() but it would produce a pd message instead, whose selector would be an error code, designed to be both localizable and [route]able. By default, that message would be sent to the console, but there would be an internal class designed to catch those messages. (If stack-unwinding were possible, it would be disabled by default on pd_error2 and could be enabled explicitly by-selector).
* failure: a test object reports a problem through outlet 0.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
hi matju, hi devs
I'm starting yet another project, and this one is about unit-testing. Here are some of my ideas. It is in the CVS in /abstractions/pureunity/
i think, this would be pretty important!
- failure: a test object reports a problem through outlet 0.
how do you want it to be implemented? one object per patch, per canvas (like switch~) or globally?
i'd also suggest the addition of an assert object, that's similar to my external on the cvs...
tim
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Tim Blechmann wrote:
- failure: a test object reports a problem through outlet 0.
how do you want it to be implemented? one object per patch, per canvas (like switch~) or globally?
I don't understand your question, but then maybe you misread something or that I miswrote something.
Test objects only test what they can.
If +-test.pd tests [+], it can test for hotness, coldness, it can test that only one result is produced per hot message, that all results are float, that a few example additions work, and that with random inputs it respects commutativity, associativity, invertibility, within appropriate relative-error bounds, etc.
However +-test.pd can't test that errormessages aren't printed during the testing. This may be something that we want to check for, and currently the best way to handle it is to search the console for error messages, and if there are any, restart the tests in verbose mode and see where the error happens exactly.
i'd also suggest the addition of an assert object, that's similar to my external on the cvs...
ok, I think that given what yours do, it should be called [error]. Also it should take an optional argument which would either be a float (e.g. the $0 of the enclosing abstraction) or a pointer. It would have one inlet, no outlet, and support the following messages:
set $scapegoat: replaces the originator of the message by $scapegoat, which can be a float or a pointer
error $1 ...: causes its arguments to be concatenated, space-separated (may include floats), and then sent through pd_error using the appropriate originator (scapegoat).
list $1 ...: for future use. would use pd_error2() (see README or previous mail). $1 has to be a symbol.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
- failure: a test object reports a problem through outlet 0.
how do you want it to be implemented? one object per patch, per canvas (like switch~) or globally?
I don't understand your question, but then maybe you misread something or that I miswrote something.
Test objects only test what they can.
ah, sorry, i misunderstood your mail ...
i'd also suggest the addition of an assert object, that's similar to my external on the cvs...
ok, I think that given what yours do, it should be called [error]. Also it should take an optional argument which would either be a float (e.g. the $0 of the enclosing abstraction) or a pointer. It would have one inlet, no outlet, and support the following messages:
i intended assert to be an object without overhead... but i also like your generalisation. the only problem i see is, that i'd like to switch off the runtime overhead in performance mode and check the asserts only in debug mode, which would be either a canvas property or a global property ... (unfortunately this distinction doesn't really exist in pd)
tim
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Tim Blechmann wrote:
ok, I think that given what yours do, it should be called [error]. Also it should take an optional argument which would either be a float (e.g. the $0 of the enclosing abstraction) or a pointer. It would have one inlet, no outlet, and support the following messages:
i intended assert to be an object without overhead... but i also like your generalisation.
What do you mean without overhead? The overhead only happens when an error occurs. Printing the error in the Tk console has much more overhead than doing a string concat. The other feature is important and because of that I wouldn't use your [assert] because it doesn't support it.
the only problem i see is, that i'd like to switch off the runtime overhead in performance mode
Just delete assert.pd_linux and restart Pd. Then all [assert]s will be disabled.
and check the asserts only in debug mode,
Oh ok, the checking is completely done outside of your [assert] or my [error], which is exactly why I decided to call it [error] and not [assert]. It's not at all their responsibility to perform the actual checks. If you want to disable the checks you can use a bunch of [spigot]s or [demux]es or such.
which would be either a canvas property or a global property ... (unfortunately this distinction doesn't really exist in pd)
You are thinking about Contracts and not UnitTests. Contracts are runtime things that you may enable or disable. As it is, I don't know how to do them. However, UnitTests are easier but lie outside of normal execution of patches.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Tim Blechmann wrote:
- failure: a test object reports a problem through outlet 0.
how do you want it to be implemented? one object per patch, per canvas (like switch~) or globally?
one more note: the way you say it, it sounds like Contracts and not UnitTests. The two are related and I'm in favour of the two, unlike most proponents of validation, who tend to clearly prefer one or the other. I think that, as much as possible, the things in PureUnity should apply to both types of testing.
For those who don't know the difference:
* UnitTests are designed to be run outside of a real project, as a "make test" kind of thing. They mostly probe border cases and past bugs.
* Contracts work at runtime and check that things are going right in an actual practical execution. When Contracts are used in code known to be buggy, they may make the bug(s) easier to locate because the Contracts determine which object is responsible for the problem.
Also, I don't quite know of a good way to implement Contracts in Pd, because normally one does it with either AOP or at least inheritance, and Pd supports neither.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On 12/30/05, ydegoyon@free.fr ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:
1> + we know it's all copyright, all your fake free software attitude ....
2> + stop polluting please ( do you have a car ? )
3> i'd like not to speak to you, but you produce so much much noise...
3 of 3 tests failed, 0%.
Please unsubscribe and install Mac OS X for further details...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:
we know it's all copyright, all your fake free software attitude ....
I found this in PiDiP's LICENSE.txt :
"NOT FOR MILITARY OR REPRESSIVE USE !!!"
This goes against FSF/GNU's FSD, rule "Freedom Zero" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
And also against OSI's OSD, rule 6 (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
And as such, PiDiP is not Free Software. It may not be distributed as part of Debian's "main" and thus instead should be put in "non-free".
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Le 29 Décembre 2005 21:56, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:
we know it's all copyright, all your fake free software attitude ....
I found this in PiDiP's LICENSE.txt :
"NOT FOR MILITARY OR REPRESSIVE USE !!!"
This goes against FSF/GNU's FSD, rule "Freedom Zero" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
Yes. But this is only because the FSF wants the user to decide what's good or bad.
And also against OSI's OSD, rule 6 (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
Wrong interpretation: the term "military or repressive use" does not relate to any speficic activity, because so many fields of endeavor are involved in the business of repression. But it complies with rule 5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", because using force against people usually involves discrimination.
And as such, PiDiP is not Free Software. It may not be distributed as part of Debian's "main" and thus instead should be put in "non-free".
It's a "modified" BSD licence, it's open and compatible... But this first phrase is simply an opinion, and legally almost irrelevent. It's a bit weird to use a BSD license and add such a vague statement, knowing that OpenBSD was financed by the Pentagon for many years until Theo de Raadt expressed its concern about the war in Iraq. B.T.W. the Internet was also developed by the Pentagon, so maybe PiDiP should not be downloaded from the Internet, since this network is being used for war and repression.
It's not a good idea to add "politically correct" clauses in a license, because their interpretations can be too fuzzy. A license is a technical document, and moral stances are better included as "legal embodiments", like the GPL does so well.
Help, help! I'm being opressed! (Monty Python and the Holy Grail) ;-) -- Marc
Any statement in a license can't just be disregarded. That's a very clear statement within a license, so its legally binding. And therefore PiDiP is not free software.
I'd prefer to have that phrase removed from the PiDiP license, though I agree with its sentiment. Otherwise it will make distributing PiDiP difficult, among other things.
.hc
On Dec 29, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 29 Décembre 2005 21:56, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:
we know it's all copyright, all your fake free software attitude ....
I found this in PiDiP's LICENSE.txt :
"NOT FOR MILITARY OR REPRESSIVE USE !!!"
This goes against FSF/GNU's FSD, rule "Freedom Zero" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
Yes. But this is only because the FSF wants the user to decide what's good or bad.
And also against OSI's OSD, rule 6 (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
Wrong interpretation: the term "military or repressive use" does not relate to any speficic activity, because so many fields of endeavor are involved in the business of repression. But it complies with rule 5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", because using force against people usually involves discrimination.
And as such, PiDiP is not Free Software. It may not be distributed as part of Debian's "main" and thus instead should be put in "non-free".
It's a "modified" BSD licence, it's open and compatible... But this first phrase is simply an opinion, and legally almost irrelevent. It's a bit weird to use a BSD license and add such a vague statement, knowing that OpenBSD was financed by the Pentagon for many years until Theo de Raadt expressed its concern about the war in Iraq. B.T.W. the Internet was also developed by the Pentagon, so maybe PiDiP should not be downloaded from the Internet, since this network is being used for war and repression.
It's not a good idea to add "politically correct" clauses in a license, because their interpretations can be too fuzzy. A license is a technical document, and moral stances are better included as "legal embodiments", like the GPL does so well.
Help, help! I'm being opressed! (Monty Python and the Holy Grail) ;-) -- Marc
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Le 30 Décembre 2005 01:43, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
Any statement in a license can't just be disregarded. That's a very clear statement within a license, so its legally binding. And therefore PiDiP is not free software.
It has a weak legal binding. I would'nt say that it's "unfree" software, it's more like a open source software with a moral statement written as a banner in capital letters. This could be included in the "readme", not in the license.
I'd prefer to have that phrase removed from the PiDiP license, though I agree with its sentiment. Otherwise it will make distributing PiDiP difficult, among other things.
Yves's intention is to distribute PiDiP as free software, and its license is very easy to fix... -- Marc
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 30 Décembre 2005 01:43, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
Any statement in a license can't just be disregarded. That's a very clear statement within a license, so its legally binding. And therefore PiDiP is not free software.
It has a weak legal binding. I would'nt say that it's "unfree" software, it's more like a open source software with a moral statement written as a banner in capital letters. This could be included in the "readme", not in the license.
I'd prefer to have that phrase removed from the PiDiP license, though I agree with its sentiment. Otherwise it will make distributing PiDiP difficult, among other things.
Yves's intention is to distribute PiDiP as free software, and its license is very easy to fix...
there's _no way_ this statement will disappear, man... i want to give it for alternative networks not for the power suckers...
saludos, sevy
-- Marc
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
On Dec 30, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Yves Degoyon wrote:
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 30 Décembre 2005 01:43, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
Any statement in a license can't just be disregarded. That's a very clear statement within a license, so its legally binding. And therefore PiDiP is not free software.
It has a weak legal binding. I would'nt say that it's "unfree" software, it's more like a open source software with a moral statement written as a banner in capital letters. This could be included in the "readme", not in the license.
I'd prefer to have that phrase removed from the PiDiP license, though I agree with its sentiment. Otherwise it will make distributing PiDiP difficult, among other things.
Yves's intention is to distribute PiDiP as free software, and its license is very easy to fix...
there's _no way_ this statement will disappear, man... i want to give it for alternative networks not for the power suckers...
That's bad news.
Therefore, we are forced to remove PiDiP from the Pd-extended packages, to keep the license issues clear.
You are also hurting alternative networks by using a non-free license. The GNU GPL is good enough for most alternative networks, I am hoping it can be good enough for you too.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 30, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Yves Degoyon wrote:
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 30 Décembre 2005 01:43, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
Any statement in a license can't just be disregarded. That's a very clear statement within a license, so its legally binding. And therefore PiDiP is not free software.
It has a weak legal binding. I would'nt say that it's "unfree" software, it's more like a open source software with a moral statement written as a banner in capital letters. This could be included in the "readme", not in the license.
I'd prefer to have that phrase removed from the PiDiP license, though I agree with its sentiment. Otherwise it will make distributing PiDiP difficult, among other things.
Yves's intention is to distribute PiDiP as free software, and its license is very easy to fix...
there's _no way_ this statement will disappear, man... i want to give it for alternative networks not for the power suckers...
That's bad news.
Therefore, we are forced to remove PiDiP from the Pd-extended packages, to keep the license issues clear.
You are also hurting alternative networks by using a non-free license. The GNU GPL is good enough for most alternative networks, I am hoping it can be good enough for you too.
you know what? i don't care at all... just sad to see the whole community to go a very wrong way ...
anyway, pd is just a computer program .. it doesn't matter so much.
saludos, sevy
.hc
"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Am Freitag 30 Dezember 2005 23:18 schrieb Yves Degoyon:
you know what? i don't care at all... just sad to see the whole community to go a very wrong way ...
for the ghost rider on the highway, the other are also driving in the wrong direction. if "the whole community" goes in the same direction, but not you, there might be a chance that someone else is just moving wrong.
btw, i think that people who react and behave like you are giving the whole open source community a bad taste. who wants to participate in a community where people behave like you?
but wait, you said yourself that your stuff is only for the ones who know .... that elitism attitude reminds me of some computer folklore about certain brands. you sound like an aggressive marketing drone. hey, guess what? youre not the center of the universe....
anyway, pd is just a computer program .. it doesn't matter so much.
and so is pidip, and so it doesnt matter much as well.
saludos, sevy
whatever,
chris
Why does all of this stuff remind me of Netochka Nezvanova?
Confused,
~Kyle
On 12/30/05, Christian Klippel ck@mamalala.de wrote:
Am Freitag 30 Dezember 2005 23:18 schrieb Yves Degoyon:
you know what? i don't care at all... just sad to see the whole community to go a very wrong way ...
for the ghost rider on the highway, the other are also driving in the wrong direction. if "the whole community" goes in the same direction, but not you, there might be a chance that someone else is just moving wrong.
btw, i think that people who react and behave like you are giving the whole open source community a bad taste. who wants to participate in a community where people behave like you?
but wait, you said yourself that your stuff is only for the ones who know .... that elitism attitude reminds me of some computer folklore about certain brands. you sound like an aggressive marketing drone. hey, guess what? youre not the center of the universe....
anyway, pd is just a computer program .. it doesn't matter so much.
and so is pidip, and so it doesnt matter much as well.
saludos, sevy
whatever,
chris
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
-- http://perhapsidid.blogspot.com (((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())()))) (())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((()))) ))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________ _____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______ ((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO
On 31 Dec 2005, at 03:36, Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
Why does all of this stuff remind me of Netochka Nezvanova?
Exactly.
To quote from pd list's past and my own interaction with Netochka's bot-like idiocy:
From D.Casal at uea.ac.uk Tue Apr 9 14:25:04 2002 From: D.Casal at uea.ac.uk (david casal) Date: Tue Apr 5 13:52:54 2005 Subject: [PD] In-Reply-To: 200204091150.g39BosM22180@www.god-emil.dk Message-ID: Pine.OSF.4.05.10204091259070.6664-100000@cpca7.uea.ac.uk
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 integer@www.god-emil.dk wrote:
pd isnt free. [perhaps if one is 99 prozent brain free]
sweeping statements are polluting and opinions are cheap. you advertise like coca-cola.
is pd better +? well ___... different shades of u gli ness. most of the data worth anything has been authored by `3rd parties`.
it's called open source collaboration. see gnu/linux.
Ooooh, the good times ;-)
I'll take this opportunity to wish all in the PD community great 2006!
d
-- David Plans Casal Researcher, UEA Studios d.casal at uea dot ac dot uk http://www.davidcasal.com
ola,
but wait, you said yourself that your stuff is only for the ones who know ....
???
that elitism attitude reminds me of some computer folklore about certain brands. you sound like an aggressive marketing drone.
oh yeh? have you ever sit your precious ass in a hacklab? do you f*** know what we talk about when we use the world "repression", here in Chile? do you at least lnow something out of your medialab? you know, all perople like you have very limted vision and opinions... that's why there won't be further anxswer...
no saludos, y no feliz anio a ti,
sevy
pd : btw, the title of this mail 8 and the delation attitude ) really sucks like in old times in Chile...
On 1 Jan 2006, at 17:48, ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:
ola,
Hola.
I'm sorry to perpetuate this thread, and promise not to reply again and heed Frank's advice. I too think this discussion is getting childish. I've changed the subject line because I do see personal names on subject lines as totally gross (in the Apache Software Foundation, doing that can get you a real butt kicking).
However, I can't resist commenting on the following:
do you f*** know what we talk about when we use the world "repression", here in Chile? pd : btw, the title of this mail 8 and the delation attitude ) really sucks like in old times in Chile...
Some of my own family suffered under Pinochet in Chile and under opression in Argentina. Also, I was raised in Spain not a couple of years after Franco finally died, and experienced first hand what a police baton feels like on your ribs when you're shouting 'Freedom'. Yes, in the 70s and 80s. I find your comparison of this discussion and its (personal or not) implications and the suffering of people in those countries offensive and unuseful.
Moreover, it is inappropriate and out of place in this list, IMHO. I've been on the PD list since 1998 one way or another and have always found that while there are strong, sometimes diverging opinions, there has always been enough healthy common sense and open- minded attitude to cope with any kind of argument.
I am active in the FFII's Software Patents vs Parliamentary Democracy campaign (http://swpat.ffii.org/) and have worked in the FLOSS environment commercially for the last 5 years; copyright isn't the problem: patents are. When you attack a single software developer for copyrighting their software (and no, I don't necessarily agree personally with that approach, in that I personally try to find the funding to release in the open), you undermine the real fight against software progress and the freedom organisations such as the FFII campaign for.
no saludos, y no feliz anio a ti,
Aw come on. Calmate i bebe una cerveza. At the end of the day, neither Matthieu's work nor Chris' in any way stop you from doing what you do, and participating still in the larger PD effort, do they? I can't see how that could be.
I personally hope we can drop this and just get on with the general PD work (on main or devel_0_39 or on our own externals or all of the above); 2006 looks like an exciting year already to me (seen Grill's ecard? ;-) ) and I sincerely hope we can cope with a little flame war.
Asbestos suits for all!
Yours,
David
-- David Plans Casal Researcher, UEA Studios d.casal at uea dot ac dot uk http://www.davidcasal.com
ola,
at least, some reasonable words from some reasonable person.
Hola.
I'm sorry to perpetuate this thread, and promise not to reply again and heed Frank's advice. I too think this discussion is getting childish. I've changed the subject line because I do see personal names on subject lines as totally gross ..
you're right, i find the procede very insulting and fascistic ..
Moreover, it is inappropriate and out of place in this list, IMHO.
it's only to explain that i certainly know what it means when i write 'NOT FOR REPRESSIVE USE' and that i will not take that statement away. i'm also here with people who suffered from Pinochet, you can check indymedia, radio numero critico and radio neta ( valpo ).
When you attack a single software developer for copyrighting their software (and no, I don't necessarily agree personally with that approach, in that I personally try to find the funding to release in the open), you undermine the real fight against software progress and the freedom organisations such as the FFII campaign for.
the problem is to copyright something like 'internationalisation of pd' or 'unit testing in pd' which are really ( or should be ) common and shared concepts.
the second problem is to present DesireData as a new project, independent of PD ( and, de facto, to copyright it ).
the problem is to copyright what you haven't done alone.. the problem is ethical.. and i know i'm right.
saludos y feliz anio, sevy
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 someone wrote:
the problem is to copyright something like 'internationalisation of pd' or 'unit testing in pd' which are really ( or should be ) common and shared concepts.
AFAIK, since 1978, it is *not* possible to *not* copyright a work. The best that can be done is to put a free license on it. The legal applicability of all software licenses depends on the validity of the copyright. This includes free licenses, which are designed to proclaim freedom in a way that the legal system understands.
None of the locales for pd bear any copyright notice, but it doesn't mean that they're not copyrighted by their respective authors. Those works are attributed to their authors.
PureUnity is released under the GNU General Public License, which is a free license according to both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Le 2 Janvier 2006 17:30, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
AFAIK, since 1978, it is *not* possible to *not* copyright a work. The best that can be done is to put a free license on it. The legal applicability of all software licenses depends on the validity of the copyright. This includes free licenses, which are designed to proclaim freedom in a way that the legal system understands.
It's also possible to put a work directly in the Public Domain. Excerpt from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain#Copyright" : "It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear."
About 1978, there's a catch. In the U.S., it's only since 1989 that works have a default copyright. If you look at the following link, in the section "WORKS PUBLISHED IN THE US", works published between 1977 and 1989 without a copyright notice and without a subsequent registration are in the public domain: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm -- Marc
On Jan 2, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 someone wrote:
the problem is to copyright something like 'internationalisation of pd' or 'unit testing in pd' which are really ( or should be ) common and shared concepts.
AFAIK, since 1978, it is *not* possible to *not* copyright a work. The best that can be done is to put a free license on it. The legal applicability of all software licenses depends on the validity of the copyright. This includes free licenses, which are designed to proclaim freedom in a way that the legal system understands.
I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S., copyright just became default then. But you can still put stuff in the public domain, you just have to do so explicitly, where as before new works were automatically public domain unless you explicitly declared and registered the copyright.
.hc
None of the locales for pd bear any copyright notice, but it doesn't mean that they're not copyrighted by their respective authors. Those works are attributed to their authors.
PureUnity is released under the GNU General Public License, which is a free license according to both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.
- Bill Moyers
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 2, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
AFAIK, since 1978, it is *not* possible to *not* copyright a work. The best that can be done is to put a free license on it. The legal applicability of all software licenses depends on the validity of the copyright. This includes free licenses, which are designed to proclaim freedom in a way that the legal system understands.
I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S., copyright just became default then. But you can still put stuff in the public domain, you just have to do so explicitly, where as before new works were automatically public domain unless you explicitly declared and registered the copyright.
Hmm, possible, but then why don't people do it? Why do people use the MITX11 license or the SIBSD license instead of just public domain?
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear."
What's the advantage of using unclear laws instead of clear free licenses such as MITX11 and SIBSD ? I mention those two as examples because they are closest to public domain and it seems that their purpose is to simulate public domain but in a legally clearer way. (GPL/LGPL has additional goals that are less close to public domain).
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
What's the advantage of using unclear laws instead of clear free licenses such as MITX11 and SIBSD ?
theyre good if you are into obfuscation and ambiguities and want to weed out those in your userbase who care about a clear license. there are those who just dont care (me being one, i know yves would rather spend his time and money making tea for hugo chavez and not waste it on silly lawyers...)
On Jan 3, 2006, at 9:07 AM, c wrote:
What's the advantage of using unclear laws instead of clear free licenses such as MITX11 and SIBSD ?
theyre good if you are into obfuscation and ambiguities and want to weed out those in your userbase who care about a clear license. there are those who just dont care (me being one, i know yves would rather spend his time and money making tea for hugo chavez and not waste it on silly lawyers...)
You bring up a good point here about lawyers. Most lawyers pretend that the law is free (as in beer) when talking about things like copyright license terms. The talk about all sorts of clauses to licenses as if they were easy to enforce, and that justice will just automatically reign upon us. (Sadly, I think Lawrence Lessig is a victim of this line of thinking with his Creative Commons licenses).
But the reality is that the law is really expensive. So if you have an attribution clause in your license and a large corporation uses your software without attributing you, are you going to spend US$10,000 to sue them to force them to? All you'd get it attribution, and it'd actually cost you US$10,000. That's how much it costs to sue large corporations, it can often cost a lot more. Why do you think that all the people sued by the RIAA for downloading settled out of court? Their settlements were cheaper than fighting to clear their names in court, even if they were totally innocent, as some of them were. And that's exactly what RIAA is counting on when they sue people.
Another example of a similar situation is a clause like "Not for military or repressive use." By legal standards, it is vague. What is the legal definition of "repressive use"? Is that the same definition that the author intended? A vague statement is even more expensive to defend in court. So now, let's say a military organization uses the software. In order to stop them, you have to take them to court, which will cost a lot of money.
But if that same software had been released under the GNU GPL, then even though that military would be allowed to use the software, they would have to release any of their additions under the GNU GPL. In the vast majority of GPL violation cases, a letter from a lawyer is enough to get the sources released since it is well established in courts and has the clout and lawyers of the Free Software Foundation behind it. Then instead of spending precious money on court fees fighting the military org, it could be spent on much more productive things, and also, that military org would be contributing to the development of the software that you use to fight them.
So the choice really seems to be between an idealistic expression and an actual benefit. Even though I believe in such idealistic expression, I think that copyright license are not the place for it because its counter productive to the ideals expressed.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.
- Bill Moyers
Le 3 Janvier 2006 20:36, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
But if that same software had been released under the GNU GPL, then even though that military would be allowed to use the software, they would have to release any of their additions under the GNU GPL.
The GPL does not force the release of source code modifications for internal use. If I have a contract with a programmer to adapt a GPL software, I can use it and keep the source, unless I want to redistribute this modified (or enhanced) software. -- Marc
On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:10 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 3 Janvier 2006 20:36, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
But if that same software had been released under the GNU GPL, then even though that military would be allowed to use the software, they would have to release any of their additions under the GNU GPL.
The GPL does not force the release of source code modifications for internal use. If I have a contract with a programmer to adapt a GPL software, I can use it and keep the source, unless I want to redistribute this modified (or enhanced) software.
Actually, the GPL covers copying and distribution. So I suppose if you never copied a single file, then you would not have to release the source. But even if you copied a fraction of a file, then the license terms kick in.
Here's the relevant parts of the GNU GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
.hc ________________________________________________________________________ ____
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore
Ah, but it says "coping AND distribution" so you would be free to copy as long as much as you want as long as you don't distribute it. (which I guess means provide copies to other people).
if there was a free software law list I would suggest this thread move to there, but I have no idea if there is one...
b.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:10 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 3 Janvier 2006 20:36, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
But if that same software had been released under the GNU GPL, then even though that military would be allowed to use the software, they would have to release any of their additions under the GNU GPL.
The GPL does not force the release of source code modifications for internal use. If I have a contract with a programmer to adapt a GPL software, I can use it and keep the source, unless I want to redistribute this modified (or enhanced) software.
Actually, the GPL covers copying and distribution. So I suppose if you never copied a single file, then you would not have to release the source. But even if you copied a fraction of a file, then the license terms kick in.
Here's the relevant parts of the GNU GPL:
- You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readablesource code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
.hc ________________________________________________________________________ ____
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Le 4 Janvier 2006 12:18, B. Bogart a écrit :
Ah, but it says "coping AND distribution" so you would be free to copy as long as much as you want as long as you don't distribute it. (which I guess means provide copies to other people).
Yes.
And the GPL also allow to use your own modifications for your own business, without compulsory redistribution. If it was not the case, the FSF would be thrilled about DRM and "trusted computing"...
if there was a free software law list I would suggest this thread move to there, but I have no idea if there is one...
I found one, the "Free Software Law list", but it's not very active : http://alt.org/mailman/listinfo/fsl-discuss Sorry for polluting the pd-dev list...
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Actually, the GPL covers copying and distribution. So I suppose if you never copied a single file, then you would not have to release the source. But even if you copied a fraction of a file, then the license terms kick in.
It's more when you are distributing that it really kicks in. The source code "must be distributed" if and only if the program (original or based on it) is also distributed. -- Marc
On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 4 Janvier 2006 12:18, B. Bogart a écrit :
Ah, but it says "coping AND distribution" so you would be free to copy as long as much as you want as long as you don't distribute it. (which I guess means provide copies to other people).
Yes.
And the GPL also allow to use your own modifications for your own business, without compulsory redistribution. If it was not the case, the FSF would be thrilled about DRM and "trusted computing"...
Actually, no. Check CC's "human readable" version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
"If you copy or distribute the program, you must accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code or with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to furnish the complete corresponding machine-readable source code."
.hc
if there was a free software law list I would suggest this thread move to there, but I have no idea if there is one...
I found one, the "Free Software Law list", but it's not very active : http://alt.org/mailman/listinfo/fsl-discuss Sorry for polluting the pd-dev list...
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Actually, the GPL covers copying and distribution. So I suppose if you never copied a single file, then you would not have to release the source. But even if you copied a fraction of a file, then the license terms kick in.
It's more when you are distributing that it really kicks in. The source code "must be distributed" if and only if the program (original or based on it) is also distributed. -- Marc
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:36:22PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 4 Janvier 2006 12:18, B. Bogart a écrit :
Ah, but it says "coping AND distribution" so you would be free to copy as long as much as you want as long as you don't distribute it. (which I guess means provide copies to other people).
Yes.
And the GPL also allow to use your own modifications for your own business, without compulsory redistribution. If it was not the case, the FSF would be thrilled about DRM and "trusted computing"...
Actually, no. Check CC's "human readable" version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
"If you copy or distribute the program, you must accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code or with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to furnish the complete corresponding machine-readable source code."
I am not a lawyer, but I take this to mean that you must provide the source code to anyone you distribute it to. Hence, if you only distribute your modifications to people inside your company, you only need to give the source code of those modifications to those same people inside your company.
Best,
Chris.
------------------- chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
If you made copies on one machine, and the software in question never left that one machine, you might be able to get away with not releasing your changes. But in practice, if an organization uses software, they are going to copy and distribute it.
Also, I don't think that the "and" means that both must happen. The license is talking about granting you rights, so it says you have the right to copy AND the right to distribute. If it said "copy OR distribute", then you would only have the right to do one or the other.
If it really meant "copy and distribute" together, that would be a gaping hole in the GPL.
.hc
On Jan 4, 2006, at 12:18 PM, B. Bogart wrote:
Ah, but it says "coping AND distribution" so you would be free to copy as long as much as you want as long as you don't distribute it. (which I guess means provide copies to other people).
if there was a free software law list I would suggest this thread move to there, but I have no idea if there is one...
b.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:10 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 3 Janvier 2006 20:36, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
But if that same software had been released under the GNU GPL, then even though that military would be allowed to use the software, they would have to release any of their additions under the GNU GPL.
The GPL does not force the release of source code modifications for internal use. If I have a contract with a programmer to adapt a GPL software, I can use it and keep the source, unless I want to redistribute this modified (or enhanced) software.
Actually, the GPL covers copying and distribution. So I suppose if you never copied a single file, then you would not have to release the source. But even if you copied a fraction of a file, then the license terms kick in.
Here's the relevant parts of the GNU GPL:
- You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readablesource code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
.hc ______________________________________________________________________ __ ____
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. -David Zicarelli
I'd like to move this discussion (and all others related to copyright) to the pd-ot list. Thanks! -- Marc
Le 3 Janvier 2006 10:45, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Hmm, possible, but then why don't people do it? Why do people use the MITX11 license or the SIBSD license instead of just public domain?
Because with licences you can impose restrictions, even if it's only about the redistribution of the copyright notice. And also because licenses are more explicit than the "state of no copyright".
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear."
What's the advantage of using unclear laws instead of clear free licenses such as MITX11 and SIBSD ? I mention those two as examples because they are closest to public domain and it seems that their purpose is to simulate public domain but in a legally clearer way. (GPL/LGPL has additional goals that are less close to public domain).
Laws and licenses are different things. Licenses are governed by international and national copyrights laws. That's why it's difficult to write a license with an international scope, translate it, and eventually test it in court. Also, the public domain is not a law. It's the law that is unclear about the fact that a work can go directly in the public domain, because copyright lawyers usually works to protect their clients investments.
It doesn't seem too difficult to publish a work in the public domain; since there's 566 projects in the public domain registered on Freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/browse/197/
I don't think we can assume that a work is more or less in the public domain, where there is no conditions, not even redistributing the copyright notice. Even an extremely simple license like "no conditions" is technically expressing a condition.
Excerpt from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses : "Being in the public domain is not a license--rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain status is compatible with the GNU GPL."
-- Marc
On Jan 2, 2006, at 1:07 PM, ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:
ola,
at least, some reasonable words from some reasonable person.
Hola.
I'm sorry to perpetuate this thread, and promise not to reply again and heed Frank's advice. I too think this discussion is getting childish. I've changed the subject line because I do see personal names on subject lines as totally gross ..
you're right, i find the procede very insulting and fascistic ..
Moreover, it is inappropriate and out of place in this list, IMHO.
it's only to explain that i certainly know what it means when i write 'NOT FOR REPRESSIVE USE' and that i will not take that statement away. i'm also here with people who suffered from Pinochet, you can check indymedia, radio numero critico and radio neta ( valpo ).
When you attack a single software developer for copyrighting their software (and no, I don't necessarily agree personally with that approach, in that I personally try to find the funding to release in the open), you undermine the real fight against software progress and the freedom organisations such as the FFII campaign for.
the problem is to copyright something like 'internationalisation of pd' or 'unit testing in pd' which are really ( or should be ) common and shared concepts.
the second problem is to present DesireData as a new project, independent of PD ( and, de facto, to copyright it ).
the problem is to copyright what you haven't done alone.. the problem is ethical.. and i know i'm right.
saludos y feliz anio, sevy
Copyright does not cover concepts, only implementations. Patents and trademarks cover concepts.
If you don't believe in copyright, then put your work in the public domain. PiDiP is currently copyrighted and has a license that has terms that the Free Software Foundation, among others, says makes your software non-free.
Most free software developers seem to believe that copyright can be used to make things more free, and they release work under the GNU GPL. Or others just want some credit and use the BSD license, like what the PiDiP license is based on.
Its a waste of all of our time to fight about this, but it is worthwhile to be clear in our desired goals and how they relate to copyright. I strongly believe in working against repression. I also strongly believe that free software will only serve to strengthen that cause, and that making non-free software hinders that cause, even if the restrictions are with noble intent.
For your situation, I would recommend using the GNU GPL, therefore any work that a repressor might do on that software, must be shared with all by law. This will only help people fighting repression. Having additional restrictions only makes our lives more difficult without slowing down someone like the U.S. Military.
Look at Debian, look at the Linux kernel, look at GNOME, this is the core free software that is making huge advances into making computers accessible to all, the GNU GPL has been an essential part of that success.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
- Eldridge Cleaver
ola,
but wait, you said yourself that your stuff is only for the ones who know ....
this kinda shock me, what you try to mean here is exactly the worst i could think of ..
but, come to next workshop in the hacklab of valparaiso, with communitary radios and tvs and check if i'm elitist...
you can come, it will be free and open...
ciao,
sevy
one more thing, because it concerns you too ..
you know what disturbs me in Bouchard's attitude and of a few other ones ( like you with Karma ), is that you all try to put a copyright on pd like programs, giving it a different name and pretending you did something on your own..
so what, who's vending something here?
would you THINK one second... before writing your flames?
ciao, sevy
Quoting ydegoyon@free.fr:
ola,
but wait, you said yourself that your stuff is only for the ones who know ....
this kinda shock me, what you try to mean here is exactly the worst i could think of ..
but, come to next workshop in the hacklab of valparaiso, with communitary radios and tvs and check if i'm elitist...
you can come, it will be free and open...
ciao,
sevy
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Am Sonntag 01 Januar 2006 19:46 schrieb ydegoyon@free.fr:
one more thing, because it concerns you too ..
you know what disturbs me in Bouchard's attitude and of a few other ones ( like you with Karma ), is that you all try to put a copyright on pd like programs, giving it a different name and pretending you did something on your own..
so what, who's vending something here?
would you THINK one second... before writing your flames?
ciao, sevy
_you_ should think a second. karma is written completely alone by me, no one else has put in any code so far. the only "pd like" it is, is that it uses a canvas where you put objects on, that you connect. and thats not even an invention of pd's author. it has nothing to do with pd, and it does not even work similar to it. so it has not only a different name, it _is_ something different. if you would have looked at it, you should know. and thus i have a copyright on it, whats wrong with that?
yves, just step back a bit and look at yourself and what you write here. if you still dont see whats wrong with you, im sorry, youre just making a perfect couple with integer.
you only want to push _your_ paradigm's and thinking into everyone elses mind, at least that is the way you behave. if you are not ok with something that someone does, state your opinion. thats ok. but you are constantly attacking people, and that makes you not an single inch better than the "evil side" you want to fight.
behave social. and look at things you want to talk about, before you make your opinion about them. the "like you with karma" just shows that you did not look at it, so you are not in a position to give any statement about it at all.
chris
you're right, i didn't test karma, but on the screenshots, there are objects like "osc" and such.. of course, nothing to do with pd ... ( the first step in a takeover is to corrupt the words, we should know that )
and you should know i'm maybe more "social" and in contact with people than you think and that i kinda know what i'm talking about..
sevy
pd : "we gonna eat the flesh of the high and mighty, for the truth they've turn into lies..." theo hakola
Quoting Christian Klippel ck@mamalala.de:
Am Sonntag 01 Januar 2006 19:46 schrieb ydegoyon@free.fr:
one more thing, because it concerns you too ..
you know what disturbs me in Bouchard's attitude and of a few other ones ( like you with Karma ), is that you all try to put a copyright on pd like programs, giving it a different name and pretending you did something on your own..
so what, who's vending something here?
would you THINK one second... before writing your flames?
ciao, sevy
_you_ should think a second. karma is written completely alone by me, no one else has put in any code so far. the only "pd like" it is, is that it uses a canvas where you put objects on, that you connect. and thats not even an invention of pd's author. it has nothing to do with pd, and it does not even work similar to it. so it has not only a different name, it _is_ something different. if you would have looked at it, you should know. and thus i have a copyright on it, whats wrong with that?
yves, just step back a bit and look at yourself and what you write here. if you still dont see whats wrong with you, im sorry, youre just making a perfect couple with integer.
you only want to push _your_ paradigm's and thinking into everyone elses mind, at least that is the way you behave. if you are not ok with something that someone does, state your opinion. thats ok. but you are constantly attacking people, and that makes you not an single inch better than the "evil side" you want to fight.
behave social. and look at things you want to talk about, before you make your opinion about them. the "like you with karma" just shows that you did not look at it, so you are not in a position to give any statement about it at all.
chris
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Am Sonntag 01 Januar 2006 20:09 schrieb ydegoyon@free.fr:
you're right, i didn't test karma, but on the screenshots, there are objects like "osc" and such.. of course, nothing to do with pd ... ( the first step in a takeover is to corrupt the words, we should know that )
and you should know i'm maybe more "social" and in contact with people than you think and that i kinda know what i'm talking about..
sevy
pd : "we gonna eat the flesh of the high and mighty, for the truth they've turn into lies..." theo hakola
hahaha, lol ..... youre cute ....
i see the term "osc" and such on many hardware synths too, for example. i see that in really old circuit diagrams as well. i see that also in many other generic audio software as well. now, who did corrupt which word from whom first?
or are you refering to stuff like copying methods and concepts, so that the result just looks like the original? you know that sco says that as well?
but maybe you are uncomfortable that people build upon other peoples effort, just to speed up development? yes? so no computer should have been invented, because it uses the priciple of electricity all over the place, which was "invented" by someone else before. even a light bulb shouldnt be ok then.
i still dont see what you are complaining about. because two different things refer to the same terms? hell, pd uses stuff like for(), if ... else ... all over the place. should it be considered just a corrupted c now? should miller say "i dismiss all my copyrights on that because i use c words, kernigham&richie should be honoured instead!" ?
so, what do you mean exactly?
chris
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:09:46 +0100 ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:
you're right, i didn't test karma, but on the screenshots, there are objects like "osc" and such.. of course, nothing to do with pd ... ( the first step in a takeover is to corrupt the words, we should know that )
please note, that there is a difference between "program" and language. the license of a compiler/interpreter is a difference to the license of a language
tim
On Jan 1, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:09:46 +0100 ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:
you're right, i didn't test karma, but on the screenshots, there are objects like "osc" and such.. of course, nothing to do with pd ... ( the first step in a takeover is to corrupt the words, we should know that )
please note, that there is a difference between "program" and language. the license of a compiler/interpreter is a difference to the license of a language
Copyright only covers implementations, not ideas. So unless a language is patented, there would never be any need for a license. And in most countries, you can't patent software ideas.
.hc
tim
-- mailto:TimBlechmann@gmx.de ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion Jack Kerouac _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
The GNU GPL is good enough for most alternative networks,
Most of Pd is under the SIBSD license. That's also good enough for most externals. PiDiP is one step away from being under the SIBSD. I tend to prefer the GPL, but I'd rather not give the impression that GPL is some sort of default choice in the Pd world. I say that also because if Yves removed the non-free clause, the remaining clauses would be exactly SIBSD.
(note: SIBSD is the license that Berkeley adopted in 1999 to replace the original BSD license, following advice from the FSF)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Any statement in a license can't just be disregarded. That's a very clear statement within a license, so its legally binding. And therefore PiDiP is not free software.
I'd prefer to have that phrase removed from the PiDiP license, though I agree with its sentiment. Otherwise it will make distributing PiDiP difficult, among other things.
i only answer to you, the rest is really a waste of time ..
but still i would use pidip to design a pd-operated guided missile to go up some asses ...
i really don't want any people disagreeing with this statement to use pidip.. and i have really been contacted by a security company to work for them ... so, yeh, i forbid them to use it...
and, that's my problem... i don't care about laws made by white americans ... unfortunately, that's all we know ( we're living by your rules, that's all that we know -- ian curtis )
ciao, sevy
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 29 Décembre 2005 21:56, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
This goes against FSF/GNU's FSD, rule "Freedom Zero" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
Yes. But this is only because the FSF wants the user to decide what's good or bad.
And then what? Does that make it a lesser freedom? And what makes you believe that this is the only reason for Freedom 0 ?
And also against OSI's OSD, rule 6 (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
Wrong interpretation: the term "military or repressive use" does not relate to any speficic activity, because so many fields of endeavor are involved in the business of repression.
I invite you to reread rule 6 and tell me how the given example of "business" is any less vague than "military". I agree that "repressive use" is incredibly vague, but since that's a "or" clause, we also have to consider the word "military" on its own.
But it complies with rule 5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", because using force against people usually involves discrimination.
Rule 5 does not apply, because it refers to discrimination in who's allowed to use the software. How the software is used to apply discrimination against people is outside of the scope of rule 5 unless it's about the rights on what may be done with the software itself.
It's a "modified" BSD licence, it's open and compatible... But this first phrase is simply an opinion, and legally almost irrelevent.
How do you know? Why is it written in LICENSE.txt? Just because it's not written in legalese doesn't make it any less worthy of consideration, it just makes it more open to interpretation.
B.T.W. the Internet was also developed by the Pentagon, so maybe PiDiP should not be downloaded from the Internet, since this network is being used for war and repression.
PiDiP's license does not prescribe how a user should download the software. Don't say "maybe", say "really not".
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
outlet 0: test results. a sequence of lists like: list $name $passed? $accuracy $elapsed for example: list
Oops, the example is missing. It's actually:
list commutative1 1 0 -
Which means that the 1st test about commutativity passed ($2=1) because it was perfectly accurate ($3==0) and that we didn't measure the time ($4=-).
In the README I have just added info about how to measure accuracy of math tests.
I also made a directory called generics/ which should contain tests that are reusable over several classes. Those are all abstractions, but then, all tests are going to be abstractions anyway. All test patches conforming to the Test Protocol have the suffix -test.pd, to match the existing help patch suffix -help.pd. Other .pd files are not tests by themselves but other abstractions useful in making test patches.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
-
B. Bogart -
c -
Chris McCormick -
Christian Klippel -
David Plans Casal -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Kyle Klipowicz -
Marc Lavallée -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Tim Blechmann -
Tim Blechmann -
ydegoyon＠free.fr -
Yves Degoyon