From konsole-devel  Sun Jul 16 01:11:30 2006
From: lars.doelle () on-line ! de
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 01:11:30 +0000
To: konsole-devel
Subject: Re: [Konsole-devel] Fwd: Copyright Violation on konsole derivates
Message-Id: <200607160311.30634.lars.doelle () on-line ! de>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=konsole-devel&m=115301231510263

Joe, All,

> Did you get any response from Rhizod or anyone else?

state is, i got a reply only from Freddie Ang, the carrier of motorolafans.com,
who works to rectify things.

I got no replies from the authors, who do not even have a proper mail address,
but only a pseudonym on motorolafans.com. I have no hurry with the issue, but
i tend to want it being solved one or the other way in a month or so. I believe
to have to react as i'd otherwise waive rights.

I want to leave to Freddie a little to make the issue known and will then retry
to contact the authors.


> Also, is there any chance you could put pressure on "blackhawk"
> (motorolafans.com account name) to release source code corresponding
> to his version 0.1 distribution of "eKonsole" (a port to the Motorola
> EZX environment of the "embeddedkonsole" program)?  He has released
> binaries corresponding to version 0.1 but not source code.  He has
> released the later source code of version 0.2, but he even states that
> version 0.2 does not work and that he only released the source code to
> version 0.2 to get help on getting version 0.2 to work.

Now the authors are the only ones who can really put things right, i could only
clean up after them by declaring the distribution uncomplying, which puts me in
an unfortunate position to say the least.

I believe there was no bad intention in what the authors did, but neverthenless
they did it wrong. And people clever enough to handle a difficult port like that,
can be hold clever enough, too, to understand and handle a license issue. Now
the outcome depends on whether they care or not.

The qonsole thing is clearly beyond the line as the author anonymously
dropped a binary and ran away laughing quite a while ago. The ekonsole
port might be a bit better as it seems newer and more maintained.

 
> By the way, I think your idea of listing the konsole embedded ports
> together with a discussion of the licensing issues may be helpful.

Listing the konsole embedded ports is good idea in itself. Explaining the
license there too, would be an extra step. For most of the derivates the
license is still visible and they are more or less in compliance. Problem
there is only whether the license is visible enough for a not so license
aware author. So far, i concentrated only on qonsole and ekonsole.

I'll wait a bit more to give them time to sort things out, and decide then
what to do next.

-lars
_______________________________________________
konsole-devel mailing list
konsole-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/konsole-devel