those claims were for a previous version of g4l written by a diffrent person.. the current author claims to have removed code in question.. and this is what Feyrer had to say about this new project
"Rumours also say that the latest version of g4l is still based on previous versions, and thus g4u. I haven't found time to check this."
Rumors are not enough proof for me, if Feyer provides some evidence I may discontinue my use of g4l.. Accusing someone of stealing code without any proof is just as bad as stealing the code.. Is the g4u project sponsored by SCO?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'd have to agree that this g4l is a different program from the code that is on the G4U site. That code was very similar, in both content and the different scripts. The current version is a single 2000+ line script, and it does many things that G4U doesn't have, but then it also doesn't use dhcp, so both programs have pluses and minuses. I've just scanned the script, seeing that printing the whole thing out is rather long, and it wraps lines to get the pages to print.
What impresses me about both programs is not in the scripts using DD, since I've found a number of web pages that talk about using DD to do backups, but that of making a boot floppy, and boot CD to work with it. That's what seems the difficult part, and in this case, one is use BSD, and the other Linux.
It would be nice if both programs could be used to improve the other. I've already donated to G4U, and appreciate the program. When I get a chance to better look into G4L, I'll probable do the same.
P.S. I noticed that a couple of the slam messages were made by people that just made an account, and dropped the message.
I'm a long time SF user, but had no reason to create an account until recently. After reading information from the original author and then trying to track down this (Frank) frastep who claims authorship. Try it yourself -- a dead end. Nothing.
Compare, then, the relative reputations/credibility of Hubert Feyrer (http://www.feyrer.de/hubert_feyrer_english.html) and frastep (no known history) and that is an issue that can't be ignored.
I am only calling it like I see it.
The funny thing is, the original code is released under a BSD license. I also filed a bug report which, if the license is corrected, would solve the whole thing.
In sum, it just bothered me that someone (or a few people), from my review of all available evidence, took someone's hard work and coopted it without honoring the licence. Now, if you thought you found a GPL violator, wouldn't you cry "foul!"
If someone can convince me that this was independently developed, desite all appearances, rather than a project derived from g4u (a longtime netbsd contributor) I'll withdraw my objection.
Until then my objection stands.
Geoff
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'm not sure what you are looking at, the G4U scripts are basically just using DD and some piping, so who can claim the origins of using DD for this. As I said, I just looked at the 2000+ line script that G4L uses, and it is nothing like the scripts that appear on the G4U site comparing the other G4L.
It should also be noted that the G4L has the options for using BZIP2 in addition to GZIP, thou it does like the DHCP setup, and requires anonymous write access to an image directory.
Again, I didn't see see where the scripts itself were an example of new programming, but the setting up of a system to create the environment in both BSD and Linux was what I was interested in. It might also be that that was done by someone else, and only the scripts were added to others work.
I'm looking for the best program to meet a need I have, and I appluad both authors for takening the time to work on this. The GL4 as listed on the G4U page, I would agree looks like a copy, but until someone shows me how the current G4L compare with the G4U, I don't see it.
Again, the new G4L script is over 2000 lines long, so it is vastly different.
Thanks for the time.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks for the offer, however the URL you supplied seems dead.
I tried looking at CVS, but there's nothing there.
Here's how I came to raise this issue:
(1) I follow NetBSD development
(2) I read an interview with Hubert Feyrer where he mentioned the problem
(3) I read the documentation on Feyrer's website
(4) I checked FreshMeat where "frastep" was basically yelling at anyone who raised the issue and acting like a jerk; this made me mad
(5) I came here to raise the issue in a public discussion and bug report so it could be resolved
And, that's where it stands today.
If "frastep" came forward and explained that he took over the project and recoded everything from scratch so that there's no infringement of Hubert Feyrer's work, then that'd probably be the end of it. But we have no word from "frastep" since October of last year.
Look, I really don't have a dog in this fight, so after taking a look at the code I'm going to drop it. I've made the issue known and we can leave it at that.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I've been looking at the code for both projects (g4u at the 1.7 level, not 2.0) and g4l.
There are a lot of changes from the older version to the newer in g4l, it appears, including making the main program reside in one menu driven file rather than seperate utilities.
ncftpget/put used instead of ftp.
dd is used as the basic tool in both.
jetcat is used as a progess monitor instead of dd progress=1.
All in all, it looks like a lot of changes were made and nice options added, but that the basic methods and options for making the images are the same.
I applaud the work that went into both projects, and leave the final judgement up to the authors and users of g4l and g4u as to whether this is an independent work or whether credit to Feyrer should be given and his BSD license respected.
Basta!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Not sure why the site was dead to you earlier, since the guam.packet.org machines hasn't been down, but it could be some link between Guam and the US was down, but it seems you have been able to look at the script code. Which is good, and you point out the differences.
I actually extracted all DD lines from the script, just to look at, and see what might need to be changed to use something other than anonymous access.
It alls goes back to just using various options that are already there, or written by some one before. Since both use DD, which should go back to the author of DD, but they also use GZIP, ftp or ncftp, and other components. At what level we decide something is copy. We also have to look at G4U, which is created from the Ghost, which was probable an extention of something earlier. I recall using diskcopy to make disk image files back in the 80's, and can't recall the command, but used an IBM 1130 in the 70's to dump disk images to punched cards for backups.
I will concur that the older G4L seems to have been a copy, and modification to work with linux.
I don't think this is a real issue with the current versions of both programs. Otherwise, we would have to trace back to the first program that ever did copying,
I'm still using G4U most of the time, since it is easier to type in the one command line option, but it sometimes fails with a broken pipe message occassionally.
Thanks for taking the time to look at things, and perhaps this is just something that people will have different opinions on.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html
http://netbsd-pt.org/?q=node/42
http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/04/1421204
those claims were for a previous version of g4l written by a diffrent person.. the current author claims to have removed code in question.. and this is what Feyrer had to say about this new project
"Rumours also say that the latest version of g4l is still based on previous versions, and thus g4u. I haven't found time to check this."
Rumors are not enough proof for me, if Feyer provides some evidence I may discontinue my use of g4l.. Accusing someone of stealing code without any proof is just as bad as stealing the code.. Is the g4u project sponsored by SCO?
Read all the comments on the FreshMeat page for a bit of context:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/g4l/
Not nice.
I'd have to agree that this g4l is a different program from the code that is on the G4U site. That code was very similar, in both content and the different scripts. The current version is a single 2000+ line script, and it does many things that G4U doesn't have, but then it also doesn't use dhcp, so both programs have pluses and minuses. I've just scanned the script, seeing that printing the whole thing out is rather long, and it wraps lines to get the pages to print.
What impresses me about both programs is not in the scripts using DD, since I've found a number of web pages that talk about using DD to do backups, but that of making a boot floppy, and boot CD to work with it. That's what seems the difficult part, and in this case, one is use BSD, and the other Linux.
It would be nice if both programs could be used to improve the other. I've already donated to G4U, and appreciate the program. When I get a chance to better look into G4L, I'll probable do the same.
P.S. I noticed that a couple of the slam messages were made by people that just made an account, and dropped the message.
Thanks.
mikes@kuentos.guam.net
Computer Science Instructor
I'm a long time SF user, but had no reason to create an account until recently. After reading information from the original author and then trying to track down this (Frank) frastep who claims authorship. Try it yourself -- a dead end. Nothing.
Compare, then, the relative reputations/credibility of Hubert Feyrer (http://www.feyrer.de/hubert_feyrer_english.html) and frastep (no known history) and that is an issue that can't be ignored.
I am only calling it like I see it.
The funny thing is, the original code is released under a BSD license. I also filed a bug report which, if the license is corrected, would solve the whole thing.
In sum, it just bothered me that someone (or a few people), from my review of all available evidence, took someone's hard work and coopted it without honoring the licence. Now, if you thought you found a GPL violator, wouldn't you cry "foul!"
If someone can convince me that this was independently developed, desite all appearances, rather than a project derived from g4u (a longtime netbsd contributor) I'll withdraw my objection.
Until then my objection stands.
Geoff
I'm not sure what you are looking at, the G4U scripts are basically just using DD and some piping, so who can claim the origins of using DD for this. As I said, I just looked at the 2000+ line script that G4L uses, and it is nothing like the scripts that appear on the G4U site comparing the other G4L.
It should also be noted that the G4L has the options for using BZIP2 in addition to GZIP, thou it does like the DHCP setup, and requires anonymous write access to an image directory.
Again, I didn't see see where the scripts itself were an example of new programming, but the setting up of a system to create the environment in both BSD and Linux was what I was interested in. It might also be that that was done by someone else, and only the scripts were added to others work.
I'm looking for the best program to meet a need I have, and I appluad both authors for takening the time to work on this. The GL4 as listed on the G4U page, I would agree looks like a copy, but until someone shows me how the current G4L compare with the G4U, I don't see it.
Again, the new G4L script is over 2000 lines long, so it is vastly different.
Thanks for the time.
If you want to look at the script without creating the image, I copied it to my little ftp server.
ftp://guam.packet.org/g4l
Thanks for the offer, however the URL you supplied seems dead.
I tried looking at CVS, but there's nothing there.
Here's how I came to raise this issue:
(1) I follow NetBSD development
(2) I read an interview with Hubert Feyrer where he mentioned the problem
(3) I read the documentation on Feyrer's website
(4) I checked FreshMeat where "frastep" was basically yelling at anyone who raised the issue and acting like a jerk; this made me mad
(5) I came here to raise the issue in a public discussion and bug report so it could be resolved
And, that's where it stands today.
If "frastep" came forward and explained that he took over the project and recoded everything from scratch so that there's no infringement of Hubert Feyrer's work, then that'd probably be the end of it. But we have no word from "frastep" since October of last year.
Look, I really don't have a dog in this fight, so after taking a look at the code I'm going to drop it. I've made the issue known and we can leave it at that.
I've been looking at the code for both projects (g4u at the 1.7 level, not 2.0) and g4l.
There are a lot of changes from the older version to the newer in g4l, it appears, including making the main program reside in one menu driven file rather than seperate utilities.
All in all, it looks like a lot of changes were made and nice options added, but that the basic methods and options for making the images are the same.
I applaud the work that went into both projects, and leave the final judgement up to the authors and users of g4l and g4u as to whether this is an independent work or whether credit to Feyrer should be given and his BSD license respected.
Basta!
Not sure why the site was dead to you earlier, since the guam.packet.org machines hasn't been down, but it could be some link between Guam and the US was down, but it seems you have been able to look at the script code. Which is good, and you point out the differences.
I actually extracted all DD lines from the script, just to look at, and see what might need to be changed to use something other than anonymous access.
It alls goes back to just using various options that are already there, or written by some one before. Since both use DD, which should go back to the author of DD, but they also use GZIP, ftp or ncftp, and other components. At what level we decide something is copy. We also have to look at G4U, which is created from the Ghost, which was probable an extention of something earlier. I recall using diskcopy to make disk image files back in the 80's, and can't recall the command, but used an IBM 1130 in the 70's to dump disk images to punched cards for backups.
I will concur that the older G4L seems to have been a copy, and modification to work with linux.
I don't think this is a real issue with the current versions of both programs. Otherwise, we would have to trace back to the first program that ever did copying,
I'm still using G4U most of the time, since it is easier to type in the one command line option, but it sometimes fails with a broken pipe message occassionally.
Thanks for taking the time to look at things, and perhaps this is just something that people will have different opinions on.