Care to share: SlackMATE

T3slider · 06-08-2015, 07:23 PM

Your world without intellectual properly would mean the writer of the next Great Novel will not profit from years of unpaid toil because others would just copy it and give it away. I somehow doubt humanity would continue to write masterpieces of the same quantity and quality if such a thing were true. I am fully in support of reforming copyright and patent law but abolishing it is an idealism far too naïve to be useful.

astrogeek · 06-08-2015, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T3slider

Your world without intellectual properly would mean the writer of the next Great Novel will not profit from years of unpaid toil because others would just copy it and give it away. I somehow doubt humanity would continue to write masterpieces of the same quantity and quality if such a thing were true. I am fully in support of reforming copyright and patent law but abolishing it is an idealism far too naïve to be useful.

But that is not a given at all! Why would you assume that a writer could not profit from their efforts?

Shakespeare? 150 years prior to the first English print monopoly (i.e. copy right) law.

Everything before and after until really mid-twentieth century excesses of intellectual property began? Were there no great works created prior to that?!

In many cases different business models would surely need to emerge and adapt, but you seem to be saying that the current system is the only one and nothing else is worth considering... would you actually say that? Probably not if you will think about it.

And Reaper's great fear that he would not get credit for his work - a totally unwarranted reflexive reaction as well. Of course he would get credit for his work, and so would those who build on his ideas, and theirs, and on and on...

All good work has its reward and all good workmen receive their credit.

The ONLY difference would be that we acknowledge that our ability to think some thought is not unique among all other humans, and we can not own an idea and deny all others the right to think and use it as well! Very simple concept there!

Denying 3-1/2 billion other humans the right to a thought just so that the one who thought it first can profit is like slash-burning an entire forest so that a single tree can thrive!

The whole of human advancement from the stone age is firmly grounded in copying, extending and building on the ideas of others. Things that facilitate that ordinary human activity are good, things that interfere with that activity are bad.

Intellectual property law grinds that process to a tightly controlled slow-creep-for-profit that effectively has stalled useful advancement of the species technologically, culturally and scientifically!

Freedom of thought, and that is what we are talking about, free exchange of ideas, would result in a literal explosion of advancement good for everyone. The resulting business models might be different but the rewards and recognition for all who participate would be many times the profit realized from chaining everyone's mind to a post!

ReaperX7 · 06-08-2015, 09:07 PM

Then astrogeek, tell that to Richard Stallman who wrote a lisp interpreter than gave it away to the public domain and then lost the ability to get any changes made on it from the corporate thieves at Symbolics who stole his hard work, to which he wrote the GNU General Public License to prevent from happening again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

An early use of the word "copyleft" was in Li-Chen Wang's Palo Alto Tiny BASIC's distribution notice "@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED" in June 1976, but Tiny BASIC was not distributed under any form of copyleft distribution terms, so the wordplay is the only similarity.[7][8]

The concept of copyleft was described in Richard Stallman's GNU Manifesto in 1985 where he wrote:

GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.

Stallman worked a few years earlier on a Lisp interpreter. Symbolics asked to use the Lisp interpreter, and Stallman agreed to supply them with a public domain version of his work. Symbolics extended and improved the Lisp interpreter, but when Stallman wanted access to the improvements that Symbolics had made to his interpreter, Symbolics refused. Stallman then, in 1984, proceeded to work towards eradicating this emerging behavior and culture of proprietary software, which he named software hoarding. This was not the first time Stallman had dealt with proprietary software, but he deemed this interaction as a "turning point". He justified software sharing, protesting that when sharing, the software online can be copied without the loss of the original piece of work. Everyone is a winner. The software can be used multiple times without ever being damaged or wearing out.[9][10]

Astrogeek, to be blunt and on point, all you are doing is recreating the software culture than existed prior to the GNU that gave rise to the problem of Software Hording and taking free works and turning them Proprietary with a single edit. This is a culture that needs to stay dead and buried, not revived and allowed to run wild yet again.

This is the core reason copyright, copyleft, and licenses exist. To prevent thievery and unjustified claims of ownership that do not exist nor have ever existed, nor need to exist, and give the credit and ownership back to the people who have developed, contributed to, and released their works, even if those works are public and open source.

Is your idea nice? Yes. Is it free to all? Yes. But is it viable in a world we live in? No it is not, nor shall it ever be.

And we don't need another Microsoft stealing their way to fame, fortune, and glory. We have Red Hat and Oracle which, between the two of them, both on their own, are bad enough, but are at least held in check by licenses.

Welcome to the world of embrace, extend, and extinguish.

astrogeek · 06-08-2015, 09:36 PM

OK, I'l just say it one... more... time... for those who have not paid attention.

Without the concept in law of intellectual property, ownership of thoughts and ideas, there would be no proprietary, no idea theft and hoarding, no patent trolling, no Microsoft style shakedowns.

Thoughts and ideas would be FREE by definition as they are by nature, the legal tools used by Microsoft and Symbolics and MPAA and you name it WOULD BE NULLIFIED AND NON EXISTENT!

You are arguing in favor of the very things that ENABLED the Symbolics and Gates and MPAA abuses, et al!

You cannot own a thought to the exclusion of all others - that is root enabler of all the abuse!

Get it?

ReaperX7 · 06-08-2015, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrogeek

OK, I'l just say it one... more... time... for those who have not paid attention.

Without the concept in law of intellectual property, ownership of thoughts and ideas, there would be no proprietary, no idea theft and hoarding, no patent trolling, no Microsoft style shakedowns.

Thoughts and ideas would be FREE by definition as they are by nature, the legal tools used by Microsoft and Symbolics and MPAA and you name it WOULD BE NULLIFIED AND NON EXISTENT!

You are arguing in favor of the very things that ENABLED the Symbolics and Gates and MPAA abuses, et al!

You cannot own a thought to the exclusion of all others - that is root enabler of all the abuse!

Get it?

So in your idealistic utopian world, who owns the rights to anything? Nobody?

No, I am not arguing for Symbolics or Microsoft. The concept of licensing intellectual property and giving rights to the developers and contributors prevents hostile takeovers.

Thoughts are NOT free. If it's your thought, it is YOUR THOUGHT and no I do NOT have to share it with you because that is my individual right, and if I do share it freely (which is a different concept altogether), there will be stipulations and you will play by the rules, or you will not play at all.

If they were free, how would anyone have rights to anything? There would be no liberty without laws to ensure it. No freedoms without legality to defend it. Your idealisms center around a socialistic-communism approach to intellectual property rights, but guess what? You're preaching a system that doesn't allow for advancement by competition! In socialistic-communism there is no real advancement because there is no need of betterment by competitive ideas. If nobody owns the rights to their ideas, nobody is going to act on them because anyone can say "That is good" or "That is bad" and the idea is killed or allowed to live on whim and the mercy of the whole. This system promotes nothing but stagnation because there is no effort made to advance nor can there be change even by conservative or progressive standards.

Why won't the license free communal effort work? Because it can't work period because it has no foundation set in stone behind it.

No, you missed it again, not me. Licenses and copyrights protect authorships, contributorships, and allows for a healthy system of competitiveness to exist. If all software was open source, would it help things? No. Because open source wouldn't have anything to better itself against. Closed source and proprietary software give open source a platform to say "we can make it better" and allows them to do so freely with laws, legalities, and licenses to back up the work done without the threat of theft, hostile takeovers, and extinguishing of sound projects.

Do you remember the SCO vs Linux lawsuit? We all should, because it was the true definition of what could have happened if SCO had have had their way, but luckily, Novell who owned the licenses to UNIX stepped in and put SCO in their place. SCO nearly made an illegal and unfounded claim that could have destroyed years of work in BSD, Linux, GNU, and other systems across the computing world, but what prevented it... A LICENSE!!! A COPYRIGHT!!! All of which were owned lock, stock, and barrel by Novell, not SCO!!! It saved everything free and open source from a greedy corporation trying to hijack everything UNIX and UNIX-like for no reason what-so-ever. Now do you understand why your idea will not work?

I get it, as I get why licenses and copyright protect and promote rights and claims, but apparently, you do not.

JackHair · 06-08-2015, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

who wrote a lisp interpreter than gave it away to the public domain and then lost the ability to get any changes made on it from the corporate thieves at Symbolics who stole his hard work

I wonder how this works? He gives it away 1st and then it gets stolen?

T3slider · 06-08-2015, 10:44 PM

[edit] Meh, OT and I grow tired. The only way to win is not to play.

ReaperX7 · 06-09-2015, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHair

I wonder how this works? He gives it away 1st and then it gets stolen?

He released it under public domain, gave Symbolic a copy, they improved it, but when Stallman asked for them to contribute back, they said no, and because the software was PD, there was no way to claim rights over it on Stallman's end. Symbolic took PD software, effectively licensed it under closed source, and got away with it Scot free.

That's what happens when you don't cover you ass, and protect your rights and property effectively, even if it's freely available to the public.

astrogeek · 06-09-2015, 12:31 AM

You have set up more strawmen than I care set fire to, so I'll just summarize a few of the high points...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

So in your idealistic utopian world, who owns the rights to anything? Nobody?

That is a rather extreme departure from anything I have said!

Please do not put words in my mouth nor try to sidetrack my single, simple, clearly stated proposition:

You cannot own a thought or idea to the exclusion of all other intelligent beings equally capable of thinking it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

No, I am not arguing for Symbolics or Microsoft. The concept of licensing intellectual property and giving rights to the developers and contributors prevents hostile takeovers.

You are indeed - quite vocally in fact - arguing in favor of the very legal devices used by Microsoft, Symbolics and others to aggressively monopolize certain ideas, thoughts.

No != Yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

Thoughts are NOT free. If it's your thought, it is YOUR THOUGHT and no I do NOT have to share it with you because that is my individual right, and if I do share it freely (which is a different concept altogether), there will be stipulations and you will play by the rules, or you will not play at all.

Again you put words in my mouth and bring in more strawmen.

I never said you had to share your thoughts with anyone! Where did I remotely imply that?!

All I said was that you cannot prevent me from thinking and using the same or similar idea!

You own a thought ONLY so long as you do not share it with anyone. It is YOURS! Nothing says you have to share it! But you do not have monopoly over the thought! You CANNOT prevent others from thinking it and acting on it! You do not own exclusivity to that pattern of neurons firing inside a human skull! Get over it!

And it is disingenuous to say, "If I do share it freely, there will be stipulations". You can't have it both ways...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

If they were free, how would anyone have rights to anything?

Strawman ++, nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

There would be no liberty without laws to ensure it. No freedoms without legality to defend it.

Now I seriously question your knowledge of history and can see that you have no understanding of Liberty.

Law is the very antithesis of Liberty.

Your statement above reads more like this...

Quote:

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
- George Orwell

(Strawman ++)++

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

Your idealisms center around a socialistic-communism approach to intellectual property rights, but guess what? You're preaching a system that doesn't allow for advancement by competition! In socialistic-communism there is no real advancement because there is no need of betterment by competitive ideas. If nobody owns the rights to their ideas, nobody is going to act on them because anyone can say "That is good" or "That is bad" and the idea is killed or allowed to live on whim and the mercy of the whole. This system promotes nothing but stagnation because there is no effort made to advance nor can there be change even by conservative or progressive standards.

Strawman^8!

That is just plain bizarre! Get a grip on yourself!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

Why won't the license free communal effort work? Because it can't work period because it has no foundation set in stone behind it.

Words in my mouth again, please don't do that!

Strawman! (factorial)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

No, you missed it again, not me. Licenses and copyrights protect authorships, contributorships, and allows for a healthy system of competitiveness to exist. If all software was open source, would it help things? No. Because open source wouldn't have anything to better itself against. Closed source and proprietary software give open source a platform to say "we can make it better" and allows them to do so freely with laws, legalities, and licenses to back up the work done without the threat of theft, hostile takeovers, and extinguishing of sound projects.

This might be the tinman, but strawman ++.

So let me get this right - open source's big strength is proprietary software? And freedom flows from licenses and legalities?

You need your meds now, seriously! (Sarcasm, humour noir)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

Do you remember the SCO vs Linux lawsuit?...

Strawman and straw-woman, married with strawkids...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

I get it, as I get why licenses and copyright protect and promote rights and claims, but apparently, you do not.

Reaper, I do respect your work and read many of your posts here - but it is rather pointless to box with strawmen or to tilt at windmills, and that seems your only tactic here, so I'll bow out until you get control of yourself and intelligently consider my single, simple proposition.

astrogeek · 06-09-2015, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T3slider

[edit] Meh, OT and I grow tired. The only way to win is not to play.

I certainly sympathize T3slider!

You have edited your post during the time I was replying to Reaper's next post, so I would like to go ahead and respond to one point that you had made with regard to Shakespeare's income from his works.

I do not claim to be knowledgable on his business arrangements, but your original question was whether great works would be produced in the absence of intellectual property protections. My response was simply to point out that Shakespeare produced his great works in the absence of any such protections.

I also stand by my assertion that technologically, scientifically and culturally, the human species is at a crawl at this time. Sure, we have more gadgets, and more arriving by the truckload every day. But as one engaged in scientific and technological development since the early 70s, there is nothing today that remotely compares with the excitment for the future of that period. I have watched the decline in real time and the past 10-20 years have been quite dramatic in what has been lost.

One measure I would apply that crosses the spectrum from technological to cultural is the degree of shared excitment for the future of everyone in general. Then it was palpable, knowledgable optimism from pretty much everyone. Now it is a much darker, less optimistic outlook with almost no shared sense of the future and little knowledge, or care about what is on the horizon. Many factors go into that, but intellectual property considerations leave a dark scrape across the landscape from education and professional to entertainment and arts... 2015 is a wasteland compared to 1975, and darkening very rapidly, IMO.

Thanks for your comments.

Darth Vader · 06-09-2015, 03:22 AM

To demonstrate that the encouraged Copyright System, in combination with the highly standardized build procedures and a (large used?) SBo Template System, will generate absurd situations, I created a Slackbuild for LibCLC using the ol'good SBo Template way. Look there:

Code:

#!/bin/sh
# Slackware build script for libclc

# Copyright 2015 Darth Vader darth.vader@galacticempire.com Death Star, The Galactic Empire
# All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use of this script, with or without modification, is
# permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
#
# 1. Redistributions of this script must retain the above copyright
#    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
#
#  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
#  WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
#  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO
#  EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
#  SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
#  PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS;
#  OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
#  WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
#  OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
#  ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

PRGNAM=libclc
VERSION=${VERSION:-20150609_svn}
BUILD=${BUILD:-1}
TAG=${TAG:-_SBo}

if [ -z "$ARCH" ]; then
  case "$( uname -m )" in
    i?86) export ARCH=i486 ;;
    arm*) export ARCH=arm ;;
       *) export ARCH=$( uname -m ) ;;
  esac
fi

CWD=$(pwd)
TMP=${TMP:-/tmp/SBo}
PKG=$TMP/package-$PRGNAM
OUTPUT=${OUTPUT:-/tmp}

if [ "$ARCH" = "i486" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
elif [ "$ARCH" = "i686" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
elif [ "$ARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX="64"
else
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
fi

set -e

rm -rf $PKG
mkdir -p $TMP $PKG $OUTPUT
cd $TMP
rm -rf $PRGNAM-$VERSION
tar xvf $CWD/$PRGNAM-$VERSION.tar.gz
cd $PRGNAM-$VERSION
chown -R root:root .
find -L . \
 \( -perm 777 -o -perm 775 -o -perm 750 -o -perm 711 -o -perm 555 \
  -o -perm 511 \) -exec chmod 755 {} \; -o \
 \( -perm 666 -o -perm 664 -o -perm 640 -o -perm 600 -o -perm 444 \
  -o -perm 440 -o -perm 400 \) -exec chmod 644 {} \;

./configure.py \
  --prefix=/usr \
  --libexecdir=/usr/lib${LIBDIRSUFFIX}

make -j5 
make install DESTDIR=$PKG

find $PKG -print0 | xargs -0 file | grep -e "executable" -e "shared object" \
  | grep ELF | cut -f 1 -d : | xargs strip --strip-unneeded 2> /dev/null || true

mkdir -p $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION
cp -a \
  *.TXT \
  $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION
cat $CWD/$PRGNAM.SlackBuild > $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION/$PRGNAM.SlackBuild

# Copy the slack-desc (and a custom doinst.sh if necessary) into ./install
mkdir -p $PKG/install
cat $CWD/slack-desc > $PKG/install/slack-desc
[ -f $CWD/doinst.sh ] && cat $CWD/doinst.sh > $PKG/install/doinst.sh

cd $PKG
/sbin/makepkg -l y -c n $OUTPUT/$PRGNAM-$VERSION-$ARCH-$BUILD$TAG.${PKGTYPE:-tgz}

In other hand, I noticed that our beloved friend ReaperXXL already published a (similar?) work. Look there:

Code:

#!/bin/sh
# Slackware build script for libclc

# Copyright 2015 James Powell james4591@hotmail.com Tulare, CA, USA
# All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use of this script, with or without modification, is
# permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
#
# 1. Redistributions of this script must retain the above copyright
#    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
#
#  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
#  WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
#  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO
#  EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
#  SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
#  PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS;
#  OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
#  WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
#  OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
#  ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

PRGNAM=libclc
VERSION=${VERSION:-20150524-svn}
BUILD=${BUILD:-1}
TAG=${TAG:-_SBo}

if [ -z "$ARCH" ]; then
  case "$( uname -m )" in
    i?86) export ARCH=i486 ;;
    arm*) export ARCH=arm ;;
       *) export ARCH=$( uname -m ) ;;
  esac
fi

CWD=$(pwd)
TMP=${TMP:-/tmp/SBo}
PKG=$TMP/package-$PRGNAM
OUTPUT=${OUTPUT:-/tmp}

if [ "$ARCH" = "i486" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
elif [ "$ARCH" = "i686" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
elif [ "$ARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX="64"
else
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
fi

set -e

rm -rf $PKG
mkdir -p $TMP $PKG $OUTPUT
cd $TMP
rm -rf $PRGNAM-$VERSION
tar xvf $CWD/$PRGNAM-$VERSION.tar.gz
cd $PRGNAM-$VERSION
chown -R root:root .
find -L . \
 \( -perm 777 -o -perm 775 -o -perm 750 -o -perm 711 -o -perm 555 \
  -o -perm 511 \) -exec chmod 755 {} \; -o \
 \( -perm 666 -o -perm 664 -o -perm 640 -o -perm 600 -o -perm 444 \
  -o -perm 440 -o -perm 400 \) -exec chmod 644 {} \;

./configure.py \
  --prefix=/usr \
  --libexecdir=/usr/lib${LIBDIRSUFFIX}

make -j3 
make install DESTDIR=$PKG

find $PKG -print0 | xargs -0 file | grep -e "executable" -e "shared object" \
  | grep ELF | cut -f 1 -d : | xargs strip --strip-unneeded 2> /dev/null || true

mkdir -p $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION
cp -a \
  *.TXT \
  $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION
cat $CWD/$PRGNAM.SlackBuild > $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION/$PRGNAM.SlackBuild

# Copy the slack-desc (and a custom doinst.sh if necessary) into ./install
mkdir -p $PKG/install
cat $CWD/slack-desc > $PKG/install/slack-desc
[ -f $CWD/doinst.sh ] && cat $CWD/doinst.sh > $PKG/install/doinst.sh

cd $PKG
/sbin/makepkg -l y -c n $OUTPUT/$PRGNAM-$VERSION-$ARCH-$BUILD$TAG.${PKGTYPE:-tgz}

The questions which I want to debate us, are:
I can publish this Slackware Package without his acknowledgement?
What is my IP, which shall be literally protected by Copyright?
What is his IP, which shall be literally protected by Copyright?
I'm legally obliged to credit him, too? If yes, why?
He is legally obliged to credit me, too? If yes, why?
A thirdly party integrator, who create yet another LibCLC build, using a SBo template, shall credit me, him, both of us or no one?
In fact, who is the Copyright owner of those build scripts?
And last, but not at least, I can publish MY own build script without including any Copyright Notice?

kikinovak · 06-09-2015, 03:30 AM

Why am I reminded of the famous Augustine vs. Byzantine Theology controversy?

ReaperX7 · 06-09-2015, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

To demonstrate that the encouraged Copyright System, in combination with the highly standardized build procedures and a (large used?) SBo Template System, will generate absurd situations, I created a Slackbuild for LibCLC using the ol'good SBo Template way. Look there:

Code:

#!/bin/sh
# Slackware build script for libclc

# Copyright 2015 Darth Vader darth.vader@galacticempire.com Death Star, The Galactic Empire
# All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use of this script, with or without modification, is
# permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
#
# 1. Redistributions of this script must retain the above copyright
#    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
#
#  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
#  WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
#  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO
#  EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
#  SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
#  PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS;
#  OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
#  WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
#  OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
#  ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

PRGNAM=libclc
VERSION=${VERSION:-20150609-svn}
BUILD=${BUILD:-1}
TAG=${TAG:-_SBo}

if [ -z "$ARCH" ]; then
  case "$( uname -m )" in
    i?86) export ARCH=i486 ;;
    arm*) export ARCH=arm ;;
       *) export ARCH=$( uname -m ) ;;
  esac
fi

CWD=$(pwd)
TMP=${TMP:-/tmp/SBo}
PKG=$TMP/package-$PRGNAM
OUTPUT=${OUTPUT:-/tmp}

if [ "$ARCH" = "i486" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
elif [ "$ARCH" = "i686" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
elif [ "$ARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX="64"
else
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
fi

set -e

rm -rf $PKG
mkdir -p $TMP $PKG $OUTPUT
cd $TMP
rm -rf $PRGNAM-$VERSION
tar xvf $CWD/$PRGNAM-$VERSION.tar.gz
cd $PRGNAM-$VERSION
chown -R root:root .
find -L . \
 \( -perm 777 -o -perm 775 -o -perm 750 -o -perm 711 -o -perm 555 \
  -o -perm 511 \) -exec chmod 755 {} \; -o \
 \( -perm 666 -o -perm 664 -o -perm 640 -o -perm 600 -o -perm 444 \
  -o -perm 440 -o -perm 400 \) -exec chmod 644 {} \;

./configure.py \
  --prefix=/usr \
  --libexecdir=/usr/lib${LIBDIRSUFFIX}

make -j5 
make install DESTDIR=$PKG

find $PKG -print0 | xargs -0 file | grep -e "executable" -e "shared object" \
  | grep ELF | cut -f 1 -d : | xargs strip --strip-unneeded 2> /dev/null || true

mkdir -p $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION
cp -a \
  *.TXT \
  $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION
cat $CWD/$PRGNAM.SlackBuild > $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION/$PRGNAM.SlackBuild

# Copy the slack-desc (and a custom doinst.sh if necessary) into ./install
mkdir -p $PKG/install
cat $CWD/slack-desc > $PKG/install/slack-desc
[ -f $CWD/doinst.sh ] && cat $CWD/doinst.sh > $PKG/install/doinst.sh

cd $PKG
/sbin/makepkg -l y -c n $OUTPUT/$PRGNAM-$VERSION-$ARCH-$BUILD$TAG.${PKGTYPE:-tgz}

In other hand, I noticed that our beloved friend ReaperXXL already published a (similar?) work. Look there:

Code:

#!/bin/sh
# Slackware build script for libclc

# Copyright 2015 James Powell james4591@hotmail.com Tulare, CA, USA
# All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use of this script, with or without modification, is
# permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
#
# 1. Redistributions of this script must retain the above copyright
#    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
#
#  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
#  WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
#  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO
#  EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
#  SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
#  PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS;
#  OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
#  WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
#  OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
#  ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

PRGNAM=libclc
VERSION=${VERSION:-20150524-svn}
BUILD=${BUILD:-1}
TAG=${TAG:-_SBo}

if [ -z "$ARCH" ]; then
  case "$( uname -m )" in
    i?86) export ARCH=i486 ;;
    arm*) export ARCH=arm ;;
       *) export ARCH=$( uname -m ) ;;
  esac
fi

CWD=$(pwd)
TMP=${TMP:-/tmp/SBo}
PKG=$TMP/package-$PRGNAM
OUTPUT=${OUTPUT:-/tmp}

if [ "$ARCH" = "i486" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
elif [ "$ARCH" = "i686" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
elif [ "$ARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
  LIBDIRSUFFIX="64"
else
  LIBDIRSUFFIX=""
fi

set -e

rm -rf $PKG
mkdir -p $TMP $PKG $OUTPUT
cd $TMP
rm -rf $PRGNAM-$VERSION
tar xvf $CWD/$PRGNAM-$VERSION.tar.gz
cd $PRGNAM-$VERSION
chown -R root:root .
find -L . \
 \( -perm 777 -o -perm 775 -o -perm 750 -o -perm 711 -o -perm 555 \
  -o -perm 511 \) -exec chmod 755 {} \; -o \
 \( -perm 666 -o -perm 664 -o -perm 640 -o -perm 600 -o -perm 444 \
  -o -perm 440 -o -perm 400 \) -exec chmod 644 {} \;

./configure.py \
  --prefix=/usr \
  --libexecdir=/usr/lib${LIBDIRSUFFIX}

make -j3 
make install DESTDIR=$PKG

find $PKG -print0 | xargs -0 file | grep -e "executable" -e "shared object" \
  | grep ELF | cut -f 1 -d : | xargs strip --strip-unneeded 2> /dev/null || true

mkdir -p $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION
cp -a \
  *.TXT \
  $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION
cat $CWD/$PRGNAM.SlackBuild > $PKG/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION/$PRGNAM.SlackBuild

# Copy the slack-desc (and a custom doinst.sh if necessary) into ./install
mkdir -p $PKG/install
cat $CWD/slack-desc > $PKG/install/slack-desc
[ -f $CWD/doinst.sh ] && cat $CWD/doinst.sh > $PKG/install/doinst.sh

cd $PKG
/sbin/makepkg -l y -c n $OUTPUT/$PRGNAM-$VERSION-$ARCH-$BUILD$TAG.${PKGTYPE:-tgz}

The questions which I want to debate us, are:
I can publish this Slackware Package without his acknowledgement?
What is my IP, which shall be literally protected by Copyright?
What is his IP, which shall be literally protected by Copyright?
I'm legally obliged to credit him, too? If yes, why?
He is legally obliged to credit me, too? If yes, why?
A thirdly party integrator, who create yet another LibCLC build, using a SBo template, shall credit me, him, both of us or no one?
In fact, who is the Copyright owner of those build scripts?
And last, but not at least, I can publish MY own build script without including any Copyright Notice?

Since you're so callous about trying to blatantly screw job licenses, and usurp my efforts in public and admitting it, go right ahead and have your own libclc package. However, the problem you will face Darth, is nobody is going to care about yet another clone you'll end up abandoning, and created in malice and contempt, and the fact that the cloned archive you use has a small problem with Slackpkg in the naming scheme.

I haven't fixed it yet on my end, but by all means release an obviously broken package! You know it's a riot knowing you didn't do any homework before being do acting stupid and malicious to someone who knew my package was broken, and hadn't fixed it yet.

Plus, the package serves no purpose without the package it targets.

It just goes to show morons like you that you can act like a pompous windbag, but when you have no concept of the purpose of the package, nor realize the package is a WIP, it only proves your nothing but a stain on the community and nothing but an obvious troll, being an obvious troll. So please, go ahead! Release your own libclc package that exactly copies mine! LOL. I needed a good laugh tonight. Bravo sir! Bravo!

Darth Vader · 06-09-2015, 04:58 AM

Thank you for your kind words, dear friend! Don't worry, I will not "steal" your work. The packages which I create aren't for publication in whatever site. Yet, QED!

Dear Slackware Team, the post of our friend ReaperX7 is a poster-child of the problems of the Copyright System which you promote. While I used, on purpose, your Slackbuilds.org Standard Template to arrive to this result, our friend (who also used the Slackbuilds.org Standard Template to arrive to his results) believe that I steal his "code". Like you see, encouraging claiming the Copyright even for a slightly modified template, we arrive at Copyright claims and on some cases even so nice words.

In my opinion, the playing with big words like the "Copyright" aren't bad per-se, but WHEN your beloved children start to take-down sites on Copyright claims, I only can say:

Houston, we have a problem!

a4z · 06-09-2015, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

The questions which I want to debate us, are:
...

there is no question,
what you can not do is using the other script and remove the license information
you can remove it from your work.

if you feel well to lie, you remove it from the other work and you say you have written it self no one will do anything in case of a build script.

if you just remove the existing copyright because you made some changes, ...well no one will harm you but people will ask why, because it is hard to follow, not obvious to contribute back, ... put possible someone will ask why.
if you than freak out, ok, sad that you devalued your own work.

but of course, you can make things that started with such a simple thing very complicated.