>IMHO Rockbox is _not_ hostile to anonymous developers,

LOL

>however rockbox.org, has a fairly long standing policy about not
>accepting anonymous contributions

I was the first.

>>yet the leads aren't even responding to the points and questions raised.
>
>They have. Which questions do you think aren't answered?

How about the legalitites of including an unlicensed MP3 codec?
Or the legal issues with the copyrighted material which is reproduced
without express written concent.
Or the use of trademarked names for plugins.
etc.

As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their
choice on anonimity is based in legal issues.
Their continued breach of the above (very prosecutable) legal issues
proves that we are being deliberately misled.
So THE question is ...what is the truth?
Perhaps, just perhaps, if the truth came out, people might react differently.

>They just don't feel for debating this, because it never leads anywhere.

Or is it because they have something to hide?
There is strong evidence of either being true.

>If someone is SERIOUSLY concerned (as you probably are because else
>you wouldn't make such a drama out of the thing) about this real name
>stuff and seriously want to help, he/she will most probably choose my
>option two and fake a name... no problem

Morals come with a high price. *I* (who am very much in line with
gl's thinking) am not a liar, don't have enough time to maintain a
fork and dont hand out my personal details online (for many reasons
covered to death now).

BC
Received on Tue Mar 14 11:27:37 2006