From: Martin Arver <martin.arver_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:47:14 +0100

This is exiting times. Seems like Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne wants to
join the team. But, not to be known by their real names but their
aliases; SuperCoder or The Caped Coder. Not that I have much say in
this discussion, but I do believe that Rockbox will live on without
anonymous submissions and I do respect that people want to remain
anonymous. But, I do not understand why you don't respect the policy
set up by the Rockbox founders.

On 3/9/06, Bluechip <csbluechip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> <sigh>
>
> What a shame.
>
> Guys, what about this "In reflection we cannot afford to lose good
> coders. The problems between us and BC run deeper than anything that
> was published online. Let's face it, we simply clash at some
> undefinable core level. The rule put in place at the moment of that
> crash seems, retrospectively, inappropriate or maybe just
> unnecessary; especially as we are now aware of any number of
> submitters with non-birth-certificate names. With that knowledge, to
> actively attempt to identify them and remove their code would
> undermine the very existence of Rockbox as so much of their code is
> now intertwined with critical code. So henceforth and with great
> consideration we are lifting the 'anonymous' rule. We do not,
> however, waive our right to refuse code from person or people unnamed."
>
> >If I remember correctly, at the first time it would have been a
> >possible way to not reveal the identity to the public but only to the
> >core developers.
>
> No, Zagor vitoed that idea within moments of me agreeing to it.
>
> The only way forward is (afaict) to do what many other submittors do ...lie :(
>
> If anyone does set up an "anonymous" fork - do make it publicly known.
>
> I suppose the only tricky part is to include the updates from the
> root-build. That could be a full time job in and of itself. Unless
> there is a clear fork point.
>
> >Can't you just release your patches into public domain in order to
> >work around the need to provide your name for all the copyright bullshit?
>
> Good choice of word. The problem is at the other end. It's not a
> matter of how the information is submitted, it is relevant to think
> of the problem in terms of what is "accepted".
>
> >Technically, it should work, and you can remain as anonymous as you wish.
>
> afaict pretty much most of the *features* (both user and techie wise)
> which I added have now been included. On a couple of occasions my
> code has been included (and indeed credited to Bluechip, although not
> in "the credits screen")
>
> I imagine if somebody released a user configurable GUI interface that
> it wouldn't take too long for rockbox to clone the essence of each of
> the underlying ideas and "join the club" so to speak. The features
> get in, it just takes someone to review and rewrite the code.
>
> Of course Rockbox regularly set hard-and-fast rules and them breach
> them one way or another (Eg "can't call it Tetris, but can call it
> Bejeweled", "strict copyright, except online docs", "anonymous is
> bad, false alias is OK"), so I guess it's all a matter of whether
> Zagor says it's okay or not, as he is the acknowledged, errrr,
> "final-say" man. He is the man you need to convince of the most
> beneficial way forward.
>
> Of course, the nice thing with PD (Free-as-in-free) is that the sort
> of people who refuse to license-cripple their code might not complain
> if someone changed a few variable names and claimed it as their own
> code so as to allow many more to benefit from it!?
>
> >firstly i dont understand why you would want to stay annonymouse.. i
> >like the egoboost of seeing my name on the web :D
>
> To me, the ego trip comes from the achievement, not the praise. I've
> spent too much of my life on a stage to really be that impressed by
> people clapping anymore :( Oh don't get me wrong, it has it's
> moments, but in general people so often clap for (what seem to me as)
> the most trivial of achievements.
>
> BC
>
>
Received on 2006-03-09