13 Oct
2010
13 Oct
'10
1:16 a.m.
On 10/13/10 02:37, Jeremy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:11 PM,
<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
I think it refers to the fact that Torben did not add himself as Author
to the source-code and left no reference other than the git log entries.
OTOH in Torben's defence: It's kind of tricky to do so: There's no
AUTHORS file nor any ChangeLog or README which usually come with FLOSS
projects to simplify that process.
Torben stated it's very ad-hoc, but it would have been nicer to first
mail this to Fons rather than LAU.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 04:49:59PM -0400, drew
Roberts wrote:
Is releasing changes to other peoples' software really the equivalent of
"the Far West"? Does the software world need a better way to
handle this reputation
issue?
(The rest of the world in general as well
perhaps?) Is there any way to
build
a signed binary where this can be checked from
within the binary itself?
Perhaps stick the signature at the end of the binary and have the signing
routine check all but the area that holds the signature? (Not well
thought
out, just an off the cuff idea.)
Nothing new is needed. Except maybe a more widespread awareness
that if the free software world is turned into the Far West it's
not going to last.
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Isn't that the entire point of releasing something
under the GPL instead of,
say, a shared source license?
If you don't like the work he did, by all means, disassociate yourself from
it.
Easier said than done.
but please, don't say that you're not going to
release any more software
just because someone released a change to a GPL program of yours.
I second that.
Jeremy
robin