Wow. It's fairly disappointing seeing an attitude like that displayed by somebody involved in a Free Software project.

The subject of the work isn't really relevant. The only real issue is that you've created it based heavily on something that belongs to me. Not only is it just polite to credit the basis of your image, the licence terms under which you're allowed to alter it specifically demand you do so. If you can't abide by that, then the licence is terminated, and you're no longer permitted to use it at all.

They are not the same images, look at the bottom right hand corners.

Actually they are... the image is repeated at the right edge, hence it looks like the source image would be bigger but if you look close, you'll see that the very left house appears on the right side again.

To solve this problem, I did a cityscape based on a freeware font so there shouldn't be anymore copyright issues whatsoever.
It can be found here: http://cyphem.de/openwrt/footer_NEW.png
I already contacted mbm and if he's alright with it, he will probably use that one.

(Last edited by cyphem on 30 Jun 2006, 15:33)

stibbons -

I'm not trying to cheat anyone out of credit, I'm just saying that the original image was used for nothing more than an outline, and that there are infact several images of almost the exact same sky line.

Right. So, however much you abridge or condense the source material, the final result is still considered a Derivative Work? That seems somewhat at odds with

no?

Wow. You're still completely missing the point. There are a lot of images of that particular skyline, sure. Quite a few of them probably taken within a few metres of where I parked my tripod for that shot. Do you have any idea how any of those images you linked to are licenced, though? Unless specifically stated otherwise, you can only really assume that you have no right whatsoever to reproduce them, in any form. I've tried giving you the right to tinker with mine, but you're still violating the terms I set out.

And I'm sure that it wouldn't take too long to find royalty-free or public-domain stock photos of much the same thing. Hell, if you care enough, deviantART would be a great place to start.

I stand corrected per cyphem.

Get rid of the image and use your own or follow stibbons' license. It's as simple as that. This is something I would expect from Sveasoft but certainly not OpenWrt. What I would like to see is that you continue to use the image and give proper attribution.

Thanks for keeping us informed, mbm.  By the powers vested in me, you are hearby afforded the title "Great Communicator".

I was just going to look into trying my own builds and I'm glad to hear this now.

The GPL works because copyrights are enforced and source must be shared. This is very similar to how CC works and survives. Just as the OpenWRT developers would like to receive proper credit and the see release of source when there are derivative works of OpenWRT, stibbons would like proper credit when art is based upon his skyline.

I love OpenWRT. I love the GPL. I love CC. All of these require sharing and following of simple rules.

I agree with Void Main, use the original art and give credit where credit is due. That doesn't mean the front webpage needs to be dirtied with an attribution, but perhaps there could be a note in the source, the image file renamed into something that identifies stibbons, or a wiki page created.

But do me a favor, don't spend too much time on it. We eagerly await your code and can not say "thank you" enough.

Hear hear. Attribution isn't a huge visible mark on every page. For me it's a name and a URL / link. A comment in the source is cool, or a note on a separate colophon page is beyond awesome. But it looks like it's pretty much moot now, and the face has been well and truly spited. Move along, nothing to see here.

As a long-time OpenWRT user, I can only agree again. Keep up the good work on a great distribution.

Is it just me, or is the website being rendered very slowly using Konqueror?

@johndoe:
I'm sorry to say this, but if you look close (on the old skyline) you will see without *any* doubt, that the base image was the foto from stibbons. You could even prove it by taking both pictures to Photoshop, scale and adjust them so that they fit on top of each other and switch one of the layer modes to "Difference".
I didn't do this yet because in general in photos there are several 'landmarks' which are absolutely unmistakable. And if you find those landmarks in two images, nonetheless how much editing there was going on, you can clearly say that there is a connection. Which absolutely is the case with stibbons pic and mbm's pic.

So, no SCO vs. IBM here.

(Last edited by cyphem on 3 Jul 2006, 11:23)

I overlayed a transparent copy of the PNG from the OpenWrt front page over Mr. Stibbons' image, there is absolutely no doubt that they are from the same image.  The OpenWrt copy wasn't even rescaled from the original!

Mrm, many thanks for your explanation. I really salute you guys. Don't you think this is overkill to merge Kamikazi into WhiteRussian. What I tried to say is you have limited resources, three to six developers working on these two projects, and you want WhiteRussian (WR) to be released as a complete package to include features from Kamikazi (KK). I believe WR is pretty mature to have its first release instead of pending with RCs. Once released, then it's time to start working to merge KK into the WR. This way, you will have an official released (stable) version and are working on the developed version (a.k.a. Linux kernel development approach).

I've been playing with Kamikaze for two months now, but I haven't checked out buildroot-ng yet. Just how "completely" are we talking about here? Could you be a bit more specific, please?

I'd be more than glad to help... if someone could just point me in the right direction (docs and stuff).

What's the major feature differences between White Russian RC5 and Kamikazi?

Thanks,
~Peter