<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
