Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Signing off.
Re: Signing off.
From: Bluechip <csbluechip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:02:26 +0000
It's not a matter of disrespect.
It's a matter of opining.
If nobody ever discussed anything,
If nobody ever stood up for what they believed in,
Nothing would ever change.
It takes a strong man to know he's wrong,
It takes a stronger man to admit it.
I would like to think we have strong leaders.
And If my thoughts are even close,
Then there is always room to Adapt and Improve.
>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