19 Sep
2013
19 Sep
'13
11:22 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>wrote;wrote:
Who cares? Yes, that's the first thing a young, naive developer is going to
do. Fork some big project with grand intentions, go ahead and smear his
filty moniker all over the source, and then.... nothing. Nobody would have
ever even known about this fork if you hadn't brought it up. It would only
become relevant if it actually offered something you don't. And on what
grounds would you prevent that? Because making something better is somehow
perverting it? That's life. No ill will here, Fons, but I hope you don't
think you'll live forever. One day you'll be gone and somebody will get
their filthy mits on your code. That's better than having it die with you,
don't you think?
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 06:01:42PM +0200, R. Mattes
wrote:
Fons, I've been around the free-software block a time or two and I have to
say I have never *once* encountered the latter form of notation. Adding a
Copyright (c) line with dates is the standard practice, but (obviously?)
only to files that have actually been altered significantly. Anyone
interested (even those weasely lawyers) can run a diff against the two
codebases to see what was actually changed.
Yes, and why shouldn't it? I read it as a
marker to show which
files have been changed.
There is world of difference (also legally) between
"Copyright (c) xxxxxx'
and
"Additional code/modifications by xxxxx"
Well, I would
take it as a _marker_
Like a dog pissing on a lamppost, or some juvenile spraying
his tags on someone else's property ?