deskthority

Redmaus wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:47

depletedvespene wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:36 A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO FIND THE OWNER HAS TO BE MADE FIRST. This is true for intellectual property, true for real estate, etcetera. I don't understand why some people insist on glossing this over, FFS.

A good faith effort has already been made. Not that it matters. I don't remember soarer ever putting his converter under any license. Also this isn't real estate either. It's a KEYBOARD CONVERTER that hasn't been touched in 8 years.

Well, the binaries are out there. Get to decompiling.

Honestly, if you want to ban me over the way I've posted, ban me. I will happily accept if keyboardjoy or any moderator doesn't want me here anymore. I can accept if there are repercussions to my actions.

Redmaus wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:47 A good faith effort has already been made.

And documented? The documentation matters quite a lot here. Indeed, that's the entire point.

I don't remember soarer ever putting his converter under any license.

That means you can't redistribute it at all! Everything is copyrighted, and if no permission is explicitly granted - and for a computer program, it must be granted separately for object and source - then it may not be copied at all.

Also this isn't real estate either. It's a KEYBOARD CONVERTER that hasn't been touched in 8 years.

Yes, and? If it's going to be done the right way, then the steps have to be followed.

jmaynard wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:54

Redmaus wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:47 A good faith effort has already been made.

And documented? The documentation matters quite a lot here. Indeed, that's the entire point.

I don't remember soarer ever putting his converter under any license.

That means you can't redistribute it at all! Everything is copyrighted, and if no permission is explicitly granted - and for a computer program, it must be granted separately for object and source - then it may not be copied at all.

Also this isn't real estate either. It's a KEYBOARD CONVERTER that hasn't been touched in 8 years.

Yes, and? If it's going to be done the right way, then the steps have to be followed.

I have a reference for a land registry search but I'm not going to reveal jack to people that want to publish pid without permission. You wanna go to court about it, you can subpoena me.

jmaynard wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:54 Yes, and? If it's going to be done the right way, then the steps have to be followed.

The "right way" is to stop being self-important and just write a clean room reimplementation. If any of you had ever tried to use the output of a decompiler before, you'd already know that.

E TwentyNine wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:21 I asked above but will restate: What is the necessity to make a name, address, or other personal information public? If Soarer is tracked down in private and that information is provided to the parties than can verify willingness to release the source code by Soarer('s family) to their satisfaction, why release the personal info? Just notify the world that the conditions have been met so the code can then be open sourced.

I'll start by telling you what the compliance officer said when I was first discussing this with him. And I quote, including the all caps: "FIND HIM." He went on to explain that at {UNNAMED_HYPERSCALE} the absolute first step would be to locate the guy, dead or alive.

I'll note that he also said trolls would sue {UNNAMED_HYPERSCALE} in a hot second (because it has pockets as deep as a medium-sized country), but are never going to bother with individual hobbyists. (I already knew that part.)

In theory, yes, that kind of private discovery might be made to work. If you actually have a plan to find Soarer or his heirs without making his real name public, I'd love to hear it. But I've been planning on the assumption that he's dead and we're not going to find him other than by a match on a death certificate - which seems more likely rather than less now that we've hear from shallot that there's a different family living at his former address.

If you don't get a response from someone who holds Soarer's rights, how in the fleeping frack are you going to proceed without making his identity public? Neither the attorney nor the compliance officer can imagine a plausible scenario in which that works, or they'd have clued me in days ago to save me from having to defend that course of action against the extreme hostility here.

E TwentyNine wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:52 Well, the binaries are out there. Get to decompiling.

I don't care to. I would rather see alternative converters pop up instead of resurrecting the mummified corpse of soarer's converter.

jmaynard wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:54 And documented? The documentation matters quite a lot here. Indeed, that's the entire point.

It's literally documented in this thread, available online for everyone to see. Either way who cares it's really not all that important.

jmaynard wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:54 That means you can't redistribute it at all! Everything is copyrighted, and if no permission is explicitly granted - and for a computer program, it must be granted separately for object and source - then it may not be copied at all.

I mean if that's you see it fine, but if someone doesn't even care to attach a license to what he's working on and then proceeds to abandon it who cares if it's decompiled and reuploaded.

I find it very strange that many of you seem to have this fixation on permission for this. It's deprecated and abandoned firmware that the owner has ZERO intention of improving/furthering.

lis0r wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:04

jmaynard wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:54 Yes, and? If it's going to be done the right way, then the steps have to be followed.

The "right way" is to stop being self-important and just write a clean room reimplementation. If any of you had ever tried to use the output of a decompiler before, you'd already know that.

About... seven?... shitshows ago, someone mentioned how getting the original package back to life is better than simply cloning it. YMMV, but some people think recovering the OG version is a better way of honoring it than making a clone.

I'll also add: my 9-to-5 job involves a LOT of source code recovery through decompilation and, lemme tell you, IS A PEST, even in the ideal scenario for it. The original source code is ALWAYS preferrable, not matter how good the process of decompilation is (and that's not even counting whatever legal issues may come about).

shallot wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:32 Yeah keep trying to drag a potentially dead man's family into court over a keyboard converter, Jesus Christ.

The last thing I want is for anybody to be in court. That's the outcome I'm trying to prevent.

Redmaus wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:07 …
I find it very strange that many of you seem to have this fixation on permission for this. It's deprecated and abandoned firmware that the owner has ZERO intention of improving/furthering.

You don't actually KNOW the truth value of your last assertion. Don't forget that point.

Also, deprecated? I don't think so.

esr wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:09

shallot wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:32 Yeah keep trying to drag a potentially dead man's family into court over a keyboard converter, Jesus Christ.

The last thing I want is for anybody to be in court. That's the outcome I'm trying to prevent.

Don't bother arguing with her.

Heck, I wouldn't even trust the information she has provided, given a) her abusive behaviour (as evidenced in this thread); b) that she has a vested interest in inhibiting competition against her own software (as evidenced in this thread).

depletedvespene wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:12

Redmaus wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:07 …
I find it very strange that many of you seem to have this fixation on permission for this. It's deprecated and abandoned firmware that the owner has ZERO intention of improving/furthering.

You don't actually KNOW the truth value of your last assertion. Don't forget that point.

Also, deprecated? I don't think so.

So instead of just doing a clean room reimplementation or decompiling the code and releasing it, the preferable alternative is to track soarer down or his next of kin, and ask them if they want authorize a bunch of keyboard nerds to use his 8 year old software?

Such a pointless waste of time. Absolute WORST case scenario is a C&D. Big whoop.

anyways I'm gonna go climb, I can't argue about this all day

Funny. I’m just down from the mountains. Apparently I missed a lot of folks being wrong, loudly on the Internet.

The aggro on this thread. Is Soarer this week’s Alps lube?

Redmaus wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:15

depletedvespene wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:12

Redmaus wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:07 …
I find it very strange that many of you seem to have this fixation on permission for this. It's deprecated and abandoned firmware that the owner has ZERO intention of improving/furthering.

You don't actually KNOW the truth value of your last assertion. Don't forget that point.

Also, deprecated? I don't think so.

So instead of just doing a clean room reimplementation or decompiling the code and releasing it, the preferable alternative is to track soarer down or his next of kin, and ask them if they want authorize a bunch of keyboard nerds to use his 8 year old software?

Such a pointless waste of time. Absolute WORST case scenario is a C&D. Big whoop.

anyways I'm gonna go climb, I can't argue about this all day

Clean room reimplementation: a clone. "Suárez Converter" or something like that. Does not honor Soarer properly.

Decompile the code: theft of intellectual property (even if "abandoned").

Tracking down the owner and asking politely if it the software can be passed on to a new keeper (*): OH NO THAT'S HORRIBLE, HOW DO YOU DARE GOING ABOUT AND TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Here's a weird-ass though: WHAT IF the third option turns out to yield a good result? Not all people are dicks or money-obsessed hatemongers.




(*) Who would qualify as the keeper is an entirely separate subject. But that must come AFTER this has been resolved.

Muirium wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:18 Funny. I’m just down from the mountains. Apparently I missed a lot of folks being wrong, loudly on the Internet.

The aggro on this thread. Is Soarer this week’s Alps lube?

Next week's controversy will be about the forking of TMK into QMK and a possible further forking of the latter into ÑMK. Get ready your nukes.

If Soarer is alive and just said screw it.... threads like these are why.

I know, right? But we were kinder with him back then, honest. He gave as good as he got!

depletedvespene wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:23 (*) Who would qualify as the keeper is an entirely separate subject. But that must come AFTER this has been resolved.

I'll note for the record that I have zero interest in that role and do not consider myself qualified for it.

raoulduke-esq wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:26 If Soarer is alive and just said screw it.... threads like these are why.

Sadly, this is true. The level of imbecile drama and needless conflict some people like to bring about for no good reason does force some people off the community.

Muirium wrote: 27 May 2021, 23:28 I know, right? But we were kinder with him back then, honest. He gave as good as he got!

And I wish I had been around back then, if only so I could have thanked him for his contribution.

I did, plenty times. Consider one of them from you.

Thank you, Muirium.

And ... more importantly ... I can't thank most of you guys enough for the journey, I am in. Consider you all to be THANKED.

shallot wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:54 Honestly, if you want to ban me over the way I've posted, ban me. I will happily accept if keyboardjoy or any moderator doesn't want me here anymore. I can accept if there are repercussions to my actions.

omg yes do it @keyboardjoy lmao. I wanna see the day

depletedvespene wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:39 Webwit, please lock this thread already. The shiRt has hit the fLan beyond any other thread in the last two years.

zrrion wrote: 28 May 2021, 00:30

depletedvespene wrote: 27 May 2021, 22:39 Webwit, please lock this thread already. The shiRt has hit the fLan beyond any other thread in the last two years.

…

Careful there. Your defficient performance as a moderator elsewhere has not been forgotten.

shallot wrote: 27 May 2021, 17:01

jmaynard wrote: 27 May 2021, 16:36
Just one minor quibble: Making money is not evil.

I should really reiterate this point, linuxman ideology is virulent libertarianism and doesn't give a shit about whether people get exploited for not having the ability or time to do dev stuff. This kind of holier-than-thou bullshit fake meritocratic bullshit is some of the worst mind cancer out there. Yes, software should be free. No, it shouldn't be used to drain the pockets of people who can't get on with doing the gruntwork.

Allowing this fake-ethical brain poison into an already heavily exploited hobby is a recipe for disaster.

But he's older than you, and that's all that matters.

Where ESR goes, shitshows follow. It is known.

Back to fucking off.

I find it hard to believe any judge is going to take the case seriously after he finds out it's about a keyboard converter....

What the fuck happened while I was not looking at this thread Well, I try to be polite in places like this, but man, the desire to do the following is physiological at this point. Presuming Soarer is actually dead and someone contacts his family:

"[...] Asking ourselves about our dead relative's possible desire about the licensing of his code, in order to act in a respectful and legal way about it... HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!! "

Okay, I proceed to spectate the war from the trenches by now.

lol gonna threateningly italicize words are we? mad about keyboards too even! I'm sure esr's imaginary lawyers (someone should start a thread to doxxsearch for them while we're at it) will think even worse of us now that posting has descended to such despicable lows.