29 Jan
2011
29 Jan
'11
3:32 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:42:59PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
maybe add the the date, where muse started.
so people can see the ratio of work that had been done.
i still find it very sad, that this fork has happened because you just
wanted some result, and not make it mergeable.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Christopher Cherrett
wrote:
it would be a ripoff !!!1111
bah....
deleting ChangeLogs is the sucks.
From: Orcan Ogetbil
Hi Chris,
what's wrong with using the colors? (just curious) That said, I believe the original codebase
deserved a little more
credit than what is there in the bottom corner of the AUTHORS file.
Moreover, when they forked off, they _kindly_ asked us to not backport
some of the changes they made (mostly appearance related). While I do
not have any intention of using their look, I found this a little odd.
You are borrowing tens of thousands of lines of code from a project,
don't give them credit in your project webpage, and tell them not to
use your little contribution in their original codebase. There is
something morally wrong here.
As for not using our look, you are free to the style sheet I created for you
but change the colors was all I was asking. You should communicate these
things directly to me instead of out here in the lions den :)
As for more attribution, what would you like. I
have no issues with giving
you props where you need it. So what do you need?
I would make it clear in my fork's webpage [1] that the codebase is
taken from such an original project, give thanks to the developers and
the users of this original project, and obviously give the link to
the original project's webpage. I would give the date of the fork, and
explain what has been modified.
Thanks,
Orcan
[1] well, not really. I would probably not fork in the first place.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
torben Hohn