Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Signing off.
Re: Signing off.
From: gl <gl_at_ntlworld.com>
Jerry, I totally agree, except is it wise to loose a passionate and
And as to generousity, it _is_ incredibly generous, but it has it's perks.
Projects die all the time. What's interesting is that this one email of
> The obvious solution, the one I suggested to BlueChip is to make up a
Neon, that's exactly my point. I could've done that, only it's not my
> What brings me back to rationality is that I don't want to have to
Exactly, fragmenting talent is counter-productive. For myself, I'm about to
> I almost tend to say "grow up, get rid of the nicknames" but I think some
Yes, I would. I respect your point of view, what bothers me is that you
> Of course, the contributors would have to be OK with not receiving any
Deal breaker. Credit is the only thing I ask in return for my contribution,
> Can't you just release your patches into public domain in order to work
The point is that, according to Linus, the project will not accept any
> firstly i dont understand why you would want to stay annonymouse.. i
As do I, I want my contributions credited as 'gl.tter', as I do in all my
> It is not about what license we use. To me, it is about who does what in a
Dan, if legal concerns were the main issue, that would be worth looking at.
-- gl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Van Baren" <email@example.com> To: "Rockbox development" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Signing off. > gl wrote: >> >> After Linus was about to commit one of my patches, it turns out the >> project leaders are not willing to accept contributions under a >> pseudonym. This may be normal in the GPL world, but for someone from the >> Windows / BSD license world, this seems utterly bizarre. An open-source >> project should be about contributions, and be as accomodating as possible >> to the people it asking to contribute their time and effort to. I have >> no problems following technical guidelines - but I'm not about to >> compromise my personal choices for a project that requires quality >> contributions to survive. >> >> So, as the decision is apparently final I'm signing off. I guess my >> various patches and WPS will either remain private, or will be released >> independently at some point. Although if they're not going to get to >> CVS, I don't really see the point. >> >> I think you guys should debate whether this really is the best way to >> go... >> -- >> gl > > My 2 cents: > > This is an open source project. Anybody is free to take the source and > run with it, within the constraints of the GPL, which is not onerous at > all. In the least onerous case, if you don't distribute your build, you > don't even have to make any of your changes public. > > There are a set of developers who created the Rockbox project and maintain > it. This has taken an enormous amount of effort to build initially and > continues to take a substantial effort to maintain it. This is _their_ > sandbox, and because it is their sandbox, _they_ get to set the rules. > > Since the project is open source, each and every one of us is free to make > our own sandbox by forking the existing Rockbox project. The current > Rockbox developers, via the GPL license, have given each of us permission > (within the GPL license constraints) to use as our own the enormous amount > of effort that they already put into the Rockbox development. That is a > mind-boggling level of generosity if you stop and think about how many > thousands of hours of other people's labor you can pick up and use as your > own with a single wget, at no charge to you. > > Now if I fork the code and make my own sandbox, _I_ am free to set the > rules as I see fit for _my_ sandbox. If I want to allow > anonymous/pseudonym contributions, _I_ am free to allow that in _my_ > sandbox and the existing Rockbox crowd cannot tell me otherwise. > > BUT in like manner, I have no business to try to tell the existing Rockbox > crowd that _they_ must accept anonymous/pseudonym contributions in _their_ > sandbox. > > The bottom line IMHO: Forking and supporting the resulting fork is a > tremendous amount of work. If you feel strongly enough about > anonymous/pseudonym contributions to step up to that task, fork it and > prosper. Nobody will (or can) prevent that. Otherwise accept the rules > laid out by the current Rockbox sandbox (IMHO, questioning is acceptable, > complaining is NOT). You are their guest in their sandbox, please behave > as one. > > Hope I didn't speak out of turn, please correct any mystakes, > gvbReceived on Thu Mar 9 11:37:30 2006
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew