Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

What other apps and distros do you use to round out your studio?

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

tramp
Established Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:13 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 454 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by tramp »

grammo wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:39 pm So indeed, from now on, think twice before you release something as GPL in this community. It's the sad conclusion. Sorry that it took me a year to find the right words.
This only show how less you know about software development and licences.
Lets start with FLTK, which is used as a base for NTK and is released under GPL. So, NTK needs to be GPL as well, as it is a fork of FLTK. (btw. do you ever see one of the FLTK developers winning about the fork to NTK?)
Then, lets take liblo, this is the protocol NSM use to create the session manager. Liblo is released under the GPL by Steve Harris. NSM directly link against liblo (otherwise it will simply be useless), so, there is no other choice then release NSM under the GPL.
You see, NSM standing on the shoulders of giants and hardly depend on work others have done before.
GPL is a community based licence and, that is good so. We don't need to reinvent the wheel with every step we make.
True is, when you enter the Open Source Community you should be aware of this. But, there are plenty of places which warn you and try to make you aware of this. If you can't life with that, simply, stay away.
But winning in retrospect wont bring you anything good.
On the road again.
fundamental
Established Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by fundamental »

tramp wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:54 pm btw. do you ever see one of the FLTK developers winning about the fork to NTK?
Talking in more broad terms, within and external to linux audio, it seems that forks only have a tendency to brew conflict when they compete with the original project in some way. That can be splitting a userbase which had a net benefit to a project, splitting development resources (making both sides worse off), competing for perceived ownership of ideas, competing for funding, competing for recognition, etc. Generally forks which amount to only personal use don't trigger conflict since they don't reach any of these criteria, nor do forks which have different non-overlapping goals.
ZynAddSubFX maintainer
folderol
Established Member
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Here, of course!
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 400 times
Contact:

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by folderol »

A suggestion:

Respectfully change what you can.
Graciously accept what you can't.
Learn to know the difference!
The Yoshimi guy {apparently now an 'elderly'}
j_e_f_f_g
Established Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by j_e_f_f_g »

people should think twice in the linuxaudio community to release their software as GPL. Is that what we really want?
Yes. GPL software should be released by only developers who aren't going to be an obstacle to additional development of the code. If an enduser wants to escape being constrained by the restrictions of proprietary software developers, he needs to avoid using GPL software written by developers who behave like proprietary software developers. This includes any developer who:

1) By whatever circumstance (loss of interest, lack of time, financial considerations, etc), fails to deliver adequate, timely improvements to the code.

2) Too often ignores endusers' feature requests simply because the developer doesn't deem that feature "of value" to him personally.

3) Fails to document his code, or otherwise provide users with adequate information/support for endusers to utilize the software.

4) Fails to fix bugs.

... and yet, not only refuses to correct any of these problems -- he tries to thwart others from using their GPL right to correct the problems (and get around an unhelpful developer) by forking the code. Using gpl-licensed software by such a developer is no better than using proprietary software (and typically worse).

When a proprietary developer exhibits the above failures, you the enduser are out of luck. When a gpl developer fails, you fork the code by developing it yourself. That's the whole reason why Stallman created the gpl (ie, over the failure of a proprietary printer driver developer).

The problem is there are asshole developers who don't understand the purpose of the gpl, and are so egotistically possessive of their code such that their attitude is completely contradictory to its purpose. Yet, they license their code gpl to encourage people to adopt it. Sometimes that goal succeeds well. Later, after the software has gotten entrenched, sometimes the developer fails as above. And when others avail themselves of the gpl solution, the shit hits the fan for the asshole developer. And everyone realizes, too late, that it would have been better had the asshole never used the gpl, and consequently his "trojan software" (like proprietary apps) never infected the oss ecosystem.

So yes, I want asshole developers to "think twice" about using oss to their advantage. Learn what it means. And if you don't mean it, don't do it.
they want first to wipe out the original NSM
... which will never happen if the original developer does a better job than they do. OTOH, if this is another instance of LibreOffice versus OpenOffice, then so be it. That's how the gpl is supposed to work, and that's progress.

Author of BackupBand at https://sourceforge.net/projects/backupband/files/
My fans show their support by mentioning my name in their signature.

tramp
Established Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:13 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 454 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by tramp »

j_e_f_f_g wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:51 pm Learn what it means. And if you don't mean it, don't do it.
thumps up, and I really enjoy how you spot the points. :lol:
On the road again.
j_e_f_f_g
Established Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by j_e_f_f_g »

tramp wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:58 pmthumps up
Ouch! You should not have given me a "thump". Now I'll have to tell my friends that my black eye was caused by hitting my face on a doorknob.

P.S. Off-topic to irritate raboof. It's my life's work.

Author of BackupBand at https://sourceforge.net/projects/backupband/files/
My fans show their support by mentioning my name in their signature.

nils
Established Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 94 times
Contact:

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by nils »

grammo wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:39 pm This is exactly the point, thanks for making this so clear. So people should think twice in the linuxaudio community to release their software as GPL. Is that what we really want?

As Fundamental pointed out, forking is one thing, how you fork is another thing. Fact is that is took me a year to make them finally drop the statement: 'released by linuxaudio.org'. But they still want to use a linuxaudio e-mail address and they host on the linuxaudio github page. They want first to wipe out the original NSM and then when they've reached their ultimate goal (full control over NSM) they might be willing to change it's name. They say it themselves. They decide for themselves and nobody does anything to restore the balance and to set some boundaries.

At the end the problem isn't the fork, not even how it's done, but the way this behavior is supported by linuxaudio.org and the community. Nice statement from the board director, but it doesn't say anything really unfortunately. They make their own boundaries as also is clear from the response of the maintainer here.

So indeed, from now on, think twice before you release something as GPL in this community. It's the sad conclusion. Sorry that it took me a year to find the right words.
I just wanted to fully quote to archive the post. In case grammoboy will, in the usual fashion, delete his posting and his account.
j_e_f_f_g
Established Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by j_e_f_f_g »

nilshi wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:28 pmgrammoboy will delete his posting and his account.
Oh my god. Someone has now usurped raboof's project. This is getting out of hand.

BTW, I'd like to announce my new fork of Non Session Manager, which I'm calling "Not Session Manager". Because I hate JACK, the Not Session Mannager will automatically disconnect all your JACK connections, delete the daemon, and therefore make it possible for Windows users to figure out how to get sound working on their Linux systems.

Author of BackupBand at https://sourceforge.net/projects/backupband/files/
My fans show their support by mentioning my name in their signature.

User avatar
sunrat
Established Member
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 242 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by sunrat »

j_e_f_f_g wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:25 pmOuch! You should not have given me a "thump". Now I'll have to tell my friends that my black eye was caused by hitting my face on a doorknob.

P.S. Off-topic to irritate raboof. It's my life's work.
Your life's work is hitting your face on doorknobs? :mrgreen:

I only vaguely have followed this saga, but to me it seems the original developer has some butthurt about the project being forked at all and finds minor points to pick at the fork project. And the new developer has initially taken some unsympathetic steps to achieve goals and express frustration. Both should take a step back as you both have contributed to the advancement of this project.
It would be nice if everyone could just get along.
nils
Established Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 94 times
Contact:

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by nils »

sunrat wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:55 pm I only vaguely have followed this saga, but to me it seems the original developer has some butthurt about the project being forked at all and finds minor points to pick at the fork project. And the new developer has initially taken some unsympathetic steps to achieve goals and express frustration.
Not exactly right. I am the "new developer" and the initial fork was already a defensive step against massive insults and verbal attacks by the original developer, and the unwillingness to corporate on the most simple technical matters.

From there it only went downhill. All the "unsympathetic steps" you have read in this thread so far were also by the original developer.
User avatar
sunrat
Established Member
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 242 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by sunrat »

@nilshi as I said, I only vaguely have followed this. If the traducement was entirely one sided, please accept my apologies.
j_e_f_f_g
Established Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by j_e_f_f_g »

I heard a rumor that it all started when the Non developer said that the jeans Nils was wearing made him "look fat".

Sometimes rumors are more interesting than reality.

Author of BackupBand at https://sourceforge.net/projects/backupband/files/
My fans show their support by mentioning my name in their signature.

nils
Established Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 94 times
Contact:

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by nils »

j_e_f_f_g wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:08 am I heard a rumor that it all started when the Non developer said that the jeans Nils was wearing made him "look fat".

Sometimes rumors are more interesting than reality.
I heard a rumor that you, jeffg, and raboof are in reality the same person with two different accounts.
j_e_f_f_g
Established Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by j_e_f_f_g »

jeffg and raboof are the same person
That's ridiculous. Anyone who has attended a LinuxAudio.org drag show can clearly see that we don't even wear the same bra size.

Author of BackupBand at https://sourceforge.net/projects/backupband/files/
My fans show their support by mentioning my name in their signature.

grammo
Established Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Non-Session-Manager fork descalation

Post by grammo »

fundamental wrote:
So, hopefully this isn't entirely out of place. For those following other mailing lists, there has been ongoing action in regards to non-* and a current fork. The fork had plenty of good reasons for occurring, though it would seem that the current way the fork is represented has escalated the situation. Ideally things can deescalate such that things can co-exist. By no means am I implying that people need to work together on a given project. That's their own choice.
Let me first say that I appreciate someone is stepping up. I've said enough about this issue and it takes me too much time and energy to really accomplish something, it's up to others now, but let me try to give a 'short' reaction.

The first and major problem is the ongoing involvement of linuxaudio.org. Finally they won't release as linuxaudio.org anymore, but tt's still maintained by linuxaudio.org thoug,h as is apparent because of the fact it is still hosted and maintained on the linuxaudio.org github page. Issues are reported there etc. etc. It's more then hosting alone, moreover there is no practical need to host it for them.

1) Clear and simple: they should remove all connection to linuxaudio.org. Host the project on their own website or github page. It restores balance and keeps linuxaudio.org neutral. This is what forks do normally. Nobody wants a 'hostile' fork of his GPL project being hosted/maintained by linuxaudio.org suddenly.

2) The naming. NSM stands for Non-Session-Manager and it should stay so. Of course you can build your own GUI around it, like it's done with Agordejo and Raysession. NSM should be treated as it was trademarked, the same way as Tytel has done with Vital I think.
The disadvantages and 'not so nice' points about the name New-Session-Manager are discussed elsewhere, I won't repeat it here. Somehow, there should be a other name.

3) As long the NSM API stays the same, there is no real problem, but they claimed the API and are changing it. I'm not a programmer, but the original author states: " I specifically designed NSM to be modular and extensible, designing in support for such things as alternative GUis". And from what I can see most extra features are possible to implement via a alternative GUI. If not, they probably need to design a way to make extensions for NSM or so, but again, I'm not a programmer, the original author is perfectly capable of giving his vision on this matter, so ideally he would do it.

Of course, saying that this is 'the community version', implicitly implies that the original version isn't a community version. It's not up to them to decide, I would say that with 30 apps supporting it... It's not nice to say it, but if they don't want to remove it, what can you do?

What can be done is: remove all connection with linuxaudio.org.

Next to that you're dependent of how much they want to take in account the hard work of the original author, who solved a major problem for the community, which they copied. How much the emotion of revenge should play a role here. How much they care about keeping NSM compatible with their implementation. How far they want to go with the fragmentation of the NSM environment and it's API. How much 'feature creep' is wise to implement. It's GPL, so people can do with it what they want more or less. The license doesn't give the original developer almost no protection. You would hope that some protection comes from the community and especially the developers of the fork themselves. The last thing you want is linuxaudio.org hosting and maintaining such a fork.

This is my take on the matter. I don't have the intention to respond on further discussion, but I found it exemplary that the discussion was going in a direction where people warn developers to understand the licenses fully. I think that should say something.

I've done enough in this realm, it's up to others to pick things up. Start with point 1 I would suggest.
Locked