WiringPi deprecated ...

mitu

In this case, he himself wanted something without playing by its rules.

Context is everything :

he rushed a release to add support for the Pi4, followed by the source code release - http://wiringpi.com/wiringpi-updated-to-2-52-for-the-raspberry-pi-4b/
as the software copyright holder/author, he's can choose to not release the source code - he's not re-licensing or modifying an existing GPL software.

Clyde

@mitu I admit I'm no expert in the LGPL, but doesn't it require anyone to release the source, even the original author? If so, if he didn't want to release the source (yet), he could have done so, just not under the LGPL.

If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to learn something. :)

mitu

@Clyde said in WiringPi deprecated ...:

@mitu I admit I'm no expert in the LGPL, but doesn't it require anyone to release the source, even the original author? If so, if he didn't want to release the source (yet), he could have done so, just not under the LGPL.

No, as the copyright owner, he can choose not to or even release it under a modified license. See how - for instance - Oracle releases MySQL : both as a GPLed software (Community Edition) and as proprietary/closed source 'Enterprise Edition'.

But, as his release announcement said, he had every intention of releasing the source.

cyperghost

@mitu Apart from the licensing it's just the treatment of the developer. People sell premade packages of some sort of software ... and if something goes wrong then say to their "clients" to ask the author of the programm for further support. How does benefit now?

It's a annoying part of free projects; I assume.

Clyde

@mitu But then he wouldn't use the LGPL but another license, right? (honest question to fully understand the LGPL)

As hard as it might sound, Intentions don't matter if it comes to licensing. Either you follow their rules or you don't. This dependability is the bedrock of the licensing system. Vice versa, I don't think it mattered much to him in the end if the people who annoyed him so much intended to do so or not. „I just felt that that was that“ [sic!] just isn't a valid reason to break the rules of the license you've chosen to use.

I know that I'm playing the devil's advocate here, I was just put a little off by his vehement reaction to that e-mail, especially since the part that he quoted didn't strike me as offensive wording. So, I wondered if that person was factually right or not, despite the fact that his comment came to the worst time possible, I guess.

(And I just like to assume the underrepresented counterpart in discussions from time to time. 😇 )

@cyperghost As I said, I completely understand the man's frustration, and he has all the right to move away from negative influences in his life. If his final release of the source code still has the LGPL or other free license, at least it's possible that someone other might take up the baton. But his last sentence about that everyone else should look for another GPIO library makes me fear that he may decide not to.

mitu

@Clyde said in WiringPi deprecated ...:

I know that I'm playing the devil's advocate here, I was just put a little off by his vehement reaction to that e-mail, especially since the part that he quoted didn't strike me as offensive wording. So, I wondered if that person was factually right or not, despite the fact that his comment came to the worst time possible, I guess.

No, as I said in my previous reply, as the author of the software, he's entitled to distribute his software under any license he deems necessary - including without source code. The other entities using and redistributing his software are doing so under the LGPL license.
So not only the guy that wrote that snarky email is factually wrong, but by sending that message, he's just like any other entitled users/companies that profited or used his software. Just asking for more, thinking he/she deserves it just because.

cyperghost

@Clyde

But his last sentence about that everyone else should look for another GPIO library makes me fear that he may decide not to.

The gpio tool was never intended for that usecase and somehow I never used this for "active" coding. It is a brilliant tool for troubleshoot some GPIO setups but it will fail if you want to achive multiple inputs in one script with interrupts ;)

You will use real dirty tricks to achive this - so it's better to stick to python language and it's RPi.GPIO libary or the raspi-gpio tool for shell scripts which is a integral part of the Raspberry foundation.

he has all the right to move away from negative influences in his life

No there is something that is named "enthusiasm" not the mad hunt for puplic attention. It's the people that stole his work and nobody deserves this disrespect. That's a way more than just negative influence, it's a hit in the middle ...

Clyde

@mitu But if he didn't publish his software under the LGPL (did he?), what did it matter at all when that other guy lectured him about it?

As for that guy's "asking for more", I usually try to suspect good intentions if I don't know otherwise for sure. He could've just acted in good faith believing the deb was released under the LGPL which he may've wanted to protect from misuse.

@cyperghost Thanks for the explanation about the tool's usecase.

As for enthusiasm: I don't think it's that easy, as how someone's message is interpreted depends heavily on the receiver's sensitivities. As I said, I didn't see that e-mail quote as offensive or hostile, while Gordon certainly did so (and maybe you, too). But one's hit in the middle may just be a negative influence or even less for another. So, I normally caution myself and others to not imply hostile intentions about others too quickly. Everyone is the hero of the story in his or her own mind, but so is everyone else in theirs.

"Hey, no time to be philosophical now. We're running low on ammo."
– Batou, Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence

That's it for me for today. Off to getting supper, now.

mitu

@Clyde said in WiringPi deprecated ...:

@mitu But if he didn't publish his software under the LGPL (did he?), what did it matter at all when that other guy lectured him about it?

Re-read my previous reply.

As for that guy's "asking for more", I usually try to suspect good intentions if I don't know otherwise for sure. He could've just acted in good faith believing the deb was released under the LGPL which he may've wanted to protect from misuse.

The .deb contains the library, not the source. No, he/she wasn't acting in good faith.

dankcushions

for me, regardless of whether he was obligated by the license or not, the email reads snarky and hostile:

Not to be a complete ass or anything, but technically the LGPL license REQUIRES you to make the sources available when it’s released.

capital letters, and just sending it in the first place considering the author had not refused to release the source, just not got around to it yet (and given that it came out in june, can't have been long). considering that this is the author, and not a forker, clearly we can give some leeway, especially considering he clearly had rushed to get RPI4 support done quickly.

the intention of the LGPL is not to be used to needle volunteer developers. i just kind imagine this kind of mindset , but we see it ALL the time :(