Re: Signing off.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Daniel Stenberg stipulated: On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, 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. Since we had this debate the last time, a large amount of Open Source projects have gone a lot stricter in this department and we are certainly not alone in this stand-point. Some of them are BSD-style too. FWIW, I've contributed code to numerous projects, including FSF-owned ones and ones owned by the Apache Foundation. None have had the *least* objection to a pseudonym (although of course on the legal papers that the FSF and Apache require, I used my real name and indicated the nom de net that I contributed under). Rockbox's antipathy towards pseudonymous contributions is unique in my experience. I can see no benefit to it. -- `Come now, you should know that whenever you plan the duration of your unplanned downtime, you should add in padding for random management freakouts.'
Re: Signing off.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Bluechip wrote: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/pub/Main/DataSheets/mas35x9f_2ds.pdf No part of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, stored on a retrieval system, or transmitted without the express written consent of Micronas GmbH. Then this should be removed. Immediately. -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
Re: Signing off.
Errm, or ask for permission? express written consent of Micronas GmbH. Daniel Stenberg wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Bluechip wrote: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/pub/Main/DataSheets/mas35x9f_2ds.pdf No part of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, stored on a retrieval system, or transmitted without the express written consent of Micronas GmbH. Then this should be removed. Immediately.
Re: Signing off.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Bluechip wrote: How exactly is it unlicenced? http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/ Björn pointed this out. You refused to respond (to that too). they haven't sued anyone yet Then The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :) Why would anyone sue one of us even if this was true? Rockbox is not a formal organization of any kind and I don't see how one of us is personally responsible for Rockbox as a whole. Possibly we could be blamed for distributing it, yes, but then I'd guess they'd sue the admins or the owner of the server(s). The Rockbox-Three were VERY clear about their stance on Trademark infringement when they insisted on changing the name of the Tetris plugin. I use this example merely to highlight the duality within the Rockbox 'code of conduct' We are clear and that has not changed. We haven't been made aware of any trademark infringements to my knowledge. Now when you've brought it up and I checked around I can only _assume_ that you are talking about our use of the name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can you please clarify? You speak in vague terms. As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their rockbox.org is a domain and there are lots of more people than three that support and produce what we do in the Rockbox project and that result is hosted on the servers using that domain name. Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish to understand fully, most correspondence is publicly available :) ... I have no interest in proving anything. Merely highlighting parts of reality which have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three. The info is publicly available and yet carefully shaded? (Not that I even understand what info you're talking about in either of these cases.) It's just another requirement, along the lines of 'rockbox is written in C and assembly' and 'comments start with /* not //'. The world is full of requirements. Yes, that's another fine example of a requirement which is only relevant when The Rockbox-Three say it is relevant. Well spotted! Did you pick the same example as me? Do you actually think that only we three do all CVS commits, code reviews and enforce the source code rules? Are you aware of what amounts of code we have? Are you aware of the amounts of contributions and submissions from people we get? Do you understand how much time we already spend on this? Yes we want the code to follow the source code rules. Lots of mistakes and sloppiness slip through anyway and from time to time we do raids to adjust code to be more adhering to our guidelines. Yes there are still many rule-breaking source codes around. One day we'll probably fix the cases you mentioned here. I have no doubts you can also find a bug or two in the code. A conspiracy by The Rockbox-Three must be the only answer to why they are still present. I mean, it can't be as simple as that mistakes happen? Now, the good part about open source is that if anyone is unhappy with the project they can take the source and start a new project somewhere else. If you and the rare few others who stand by you on your conspiracy-crusade would be seriously concerned, then you should do this. But no, as we've seen for the last several years, you just continue your whining and complaining. I don't think I'm alone in wondering what the heck you're still doing here. Everything we do seems to be wrong in your eyes. You don't contribute with _anything_ useful. Yet you're still here. Year after year. I have no doubt that you'll continue your endless effort until the end of times. I think I'll continue to respond to your outbursts every now and then. It'll keep me amused. -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
Re: Signing off.
How exactly is it unlicenced? http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/ Björn pointed this out. You refused to respond (to that too). Well, first off, I have already apologised for not reading the full thread-to-date before I replied. The above was in reply to a post made BEFORE Bjorn's post. Secondly, I did not see any questions in Bjorns post or any points which appeared to require a rebuttal. He knows it is thorny and repulsive, and because of his take on European Software Patents he believes we are in the clear If there is anything specific you want my input on, please pose it to me in the form of a question. If not, then as far as I see it, Rockbox's has opined formally with 'we don't think we're breaching Thompson/Fraunhofer's license' ...and at that point, you need someone with far more legal experience than I have to help you out. they haven't sued anyone yet Then The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :) Why would anyone sue one of us even if this was true? I remember saying that when I was told that my pen-name could cause legal trouble for you [collective]. So I say, whatever your [collective] reasons were then, will probably guide you to the answer this time. Rockbox is not a formal organization of any kind and I don't see how one of us is personally responsible for Rockbox as a whole. Possibly we could be blamed for distributing it, yes, but then I'd guess they'd sue the admins or the owner of the server(s). Is that why Linus' name has been removed from internic's database? The Rockbox-Three were VERY clear about their stance on Trademark infringement when they insisted on changing the name of the Tetris plugin. I use this example merely to highlight the duality within the Rockbox 'code of conduct' We are clear and that has not changed. We haven't been made aware of any trademark infringements to my knowledge. Now when you've brought it up and I checked around I can only _assume_ that you are talking about our use of the name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can you please clarify? You speak in vague terms. Indeed, Bejeweled was the one that leapt out at me. But as you also have focussed on this, I guess I have been misinformed (by a Nokia games coder at Vodafone) that Popcap own the trademark on the name. As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their rockbox.org is a domain and there are lots of more people than three that support and produce what we do in the Rockbox project and that result is hosted on the servers using that domain name. In context of the post to which I was replying, you had been collectively referred to as rockbox.org, hence my placing it in parenthesis, so the chap to whom I was replying understood my reference. Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish to understand fully, most correspondence is publicly available :) ... Again, aimed at the guy to whom I was replying, who seemed to be lacking a large chunk of info. I have no interest in proving anything. Merely highlighting parts of reality which have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three. The info is publicly available and yet carefully shaded? (Not that I even understand what info you're talking about in either of these cases.) Well, in the first case, it was in reply to the original post which you have snipped. In the second case, the incongruitites created by The Rockbox-Three are generally eschewed, not in what HAS been said, but more in what has NOT been said. It's just another requirement, along the lines of 'rockbox is written in C and assembly' and 'comments start with /* not //'. The world is full of requirements. Yes, that's another fine example of a requirement which is only relevant when The Rockbox-Three say it is relevant. Well spotted! Did you pick the same example as me? Do you actually think that only we three do all CVS commits, code reviews and enforce the source code rules? No, but then you are being deliberately silly No, Jens seems to do most of the work there No, but you should enforce ALL your rules with equal vigour Are you aware of what amounts of code we have? Yes Are you aware of the amounts of contributions and submissions from people we get? Yes Do you understand how much time we already spend on this? Yes. In fact I honestly wonder how you guys earn money. My best guess is Contractors.se (sorry if I got that wrong, but you will know what I mean) must be your [collective?] company - otherwise you seem to be online all day hacking rockbox, often from home - and I would have thought you would have been fired for not doing any real work ...if you ARE doing real work then you must all be single and insomniacs ;) - humour Yes we want the code to follow the source code rules. Lots of mistakes and sloppiness slip through anyway and from time to time we do raids to adjust code to be more adhering to our guidelines. Yes there are still
Re: Signing off.
We are clear and that has not changed. We haven't been made aware of any trademark infringements to my knowledge. Now when you've brought it up and I checked around I can only _assume_ that you are talking about our use of the name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can you please clarify? You speak in vague terms. Indeed, Bejeweled was the one that leapt out at me. But as you also have focussed on this, I guess I have been misinformed (by a Nokia games coder at Vodafone) that Popcap own the trademark on the name. According to the U.S. Patent Trademark Office website (http://www.uspto.gov), Bejeweled is a registered trademark of PopCap Games, Inc, U.S. Trademark Registration Number 2864970. The goods and services covered by the mark are described as, Electronic game programs; downloadable electronic game programs; electronic game software; computer game programs; downloadable computer game programs; interactive game programs; interactive game software.
Re: Signing off.
Bluechip, as far as I see, you're wasting your time here.You clearly stand nothing to gain, as you have made it completely clear that you aren't going to reveal your real name, and the rockbox team have made it just as clear that this is a requirement for the acceptance of your code. The only reason there has been such a big debate about this is because you have obviously been spending all your time somehow trying to bring the rockbox three (as you put it) down, with these constant and completely ineffective replies. It's proving pointless and it makes you look silly. Use your time more effectively and take some advice from the people that have already contributed - take your code to an offshoot project and enjoy yourself.Will.On 3/16/06, Bluechip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How exactly is it unlicenced?http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/Björn pointed this out. You refused to respond (to that too). Well, first off, I have already apologised fornot reading the full thread-to-date before I replied.The above was in reply to a post made BEFORE Bjorn's post.Secondly, I did not see any questions in Bjorns post or any points which appeared to require a rebuttal.He knows it is thorny and repulsive, andbecause of his take on European SoftwarePatents he believes we are in the clear If there is anything specific you want my inputon, please pose it to me in the form of a question.If not, then as far as I see it, Rockbox's hasopined formally with 'we don't think we'rebreaching Thompson/Fraunhofer's license' ...and at that point, you need someone with far morelegal experience than I have to help you out.they haven't sued anyone yetThen The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :) Why would anyone sue one of us even if this was true?I remember saying that when I was told that mypen-name could cause legal trouble for you [collective].So I say, whatever your [collective] reasons were then, will probably guide you to the answer this time.Rockbox is not a formal organization of any kindand I don't see how one of us is personallyresponsible for Rockbox as a whole. Possibly we could be blamed for distributing it, yes, butthen I'd guess they'd sue the admins or the owner of the server(s).Is that why Linus' name has been removed from internic's database?The Rockbox-Three were VERY clear about their stance on Trademark infringement when theyinsisted on changing the name of the Tetrisplugin. I use this example merely to highlightthe duality within the Rockbox 'code of conduct' We are clear and that has not changed. Wehaven't been made aware of any trademarkinfringements to my knowledge. Now when you'vebrought it up and I checked around I can only_assume_ that you are talking about our use of the name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can youplease clarify? You speak in vague terms.Indeed, Bejeweled was the one that leapt out atme.But as you also have focussed on this, Iguess I have been misinformed (by a Nokia games coder at Vodafone) that Popcap own the trademark on the name. As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their rockbox.org is a domain and there are lots ofmore people than three that support and producewhat we do in the Rockbox project and thatresult is hosted on the servers using that domain name. In context of the post to which I was replying,you had been collectively referred to asrockbox.org, hence my placing it inparenthesis, so the chap to whom I was replying understood my reference. Feel free to read up on the subject if you wishto understand fully, most correspondence is publicly available :)...Again, aimed at the guy to whom I was replying,who seemed to be lacking a large chunk of info. I have no interest in provinganything.Merely highlighting parts of realitywhich have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three.The info is publicly available and yet carefully shaded? (Not that I even understand what infoyou're talking about in either of these cases.)Well, in the first case, it was in reply to theoriginal post which you have snipped.In the second case, the incongruitites created by The Rockbox-Three are generally eschewed, not inwhat HAS been said, but more in what has NOT been said.It's just another requirement, along the linesof 'rockbox is written in C and assembly' and 'comments start with /* not //'. The world is full of requirements.Yes, that's another fine example of arequirement which is only relevant when TheRockbox-Three say it is relevant.Well spotted!Did you pick the same example as me?Do you actually think that only we three do allCVS commits, code reviews and enforce the source code rules?No, but then you are being deliberately silly No, Jens seems to do most of the work thereNo, but you should enforce ALL your rules with equal vigourAre you aware of what amounts of code we have?YesAre you aware of the amounts of contributions and submissions from people we get?YesDo you understand how much time we already spend on this?Yes.In fact I honestly wonder how you guys earnmoney.My best
Re: Signing off.
They have. Which questions do you think aren't answered? How about the legalitites of including an unlicensed MP3 codec? How exactly is it unlicenced? http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/ they haven't sued anyone yet Then The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :) Or the legal issues with the copyrighted material which is reproduced without express written concent. I'm not sure what you're referring to here See previous mail for example Or the use of trademarked names for plugins. Trademarks are a cloudy issue. The Rockbox-Three were VERY clear about their stance on Trademark infringement when they insisted on changing the name of the Tetris plugin. I use this example merely to highlight the duality within the Rockbox 'code of conduct' As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their choice on anonimity is based in legal issues. That may be, I couldn't say, but moving on. Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish to understand fully, most correspondence is publicly available :) Their continued breach of the above (very prosecutable) legal issues proves that we are being deliberately misled. You've yet to prove any breaches, I have no interest in proving anything. Merely highlighting parts of reality which have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three. except the mp3 issue, which, as I've mentioned, isn't one, unless someone can point to evidence where this is no longer the case. See above link. And legal issues come in many flavours. Err, OK. Perhaps they're more interested in being able to help a company identify stolen code's origin? Perhaps ...is that another way to say That may be, I couldn't say, but moving on. After all, if an employee of Iriver donated their mp3 encoder's source under an anonymous pseudonym, IRiver will most likely sue rockbox in order to find out whom. And the answer will be w, he TOLD us his name is 'john doe' - here's his email address; good luck I really don't feel that rockbox should be in the business of protecting anyone under these circumstances. Nope. With that we can utterly agree. So THE question is ...what is the truth? Conspiracy theorys aside, perhaps they just *want to know your name*! Or at least something that at least LOOKS/sounds like a real name! Trust is a two-way street, Err, no. Trust is an esoteric concept. Nominalisations are fun :) and the users of rockbox need to be able to trust them as much as developers do. I agreed to trust The Rockbox-Three with my personal details, at their (later retracted) request. But was offered no trust in return. In rockbox world, trust is a ONE way street! It's just another requirement, along the lines of 'rockbox is written in C and assembly' and 'comments start with /* not //'. The world is full of requirements. Yes, that's another fine example of a requirement which is only relevant when The Rockbox-Three say it is relevant. Well spotted! Did you pick the same example as me? http://www.rockbox.org/viewcvs.cgi/apps/codecs/lib/codeclib.c?rev=1.12view=markup unsigned char* mp3buf; // The actual MP3 buffer from Rockbox unsigned char* mallocbuf; // 512K from the start of MP3 buffer unsigned char* filebuf;// The rest of the MP3 buffer Perhaps, just perhaps, if the truth came out, people might react differently. Of course, there are little green men on earth, Americans never walked on the moon, and Hoofbeats still mean 'Zebra'. Y. Up the doseage. 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. No, really, there isn't. Nothing you've said here strikes me as evidence. That's fair, different people will notice different things. A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest [Simon Garfunkel] 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). Which they've respected. No-one's forcing you, and since you're not being paid, you're not contractually obligated to do anything for rockbox, and thus, not obligated to give up your name against your will. Personally, I'm of the opinion that rockbox *should* be picky, if only because there's far FAR more developers under the sun. So much so that losing talent really isn't what I'd consider an obstacle to rockbox's goals. (note, opinion is mine, not rockbox's, since I've only done minor work for rockbox thus far). nods I'm completely in Joel Spolsky's camp
Re: Signing off.
I started this thread, let me try to close it. Almost everybody who replied to it found at least some aspect of the 'no anonymous contributions' policy undesireable or flawed - yet the leads aren't even responding to the points and questions raised. So basically it's 'take it or leave it' from them. Draw your own conclusions. Just checked the poll, the good news is that not many people seem to have felt the need to sign up with a false name. The question is, how many people are simply not signing up because of this? As for me, I'm going back to leeching of everybody else's good work here and keeping my improvements to myself. Carry on... -- gl
Re: Signing off.
I won't pretend to hold any influence in this project, but from my experience, an email address is more 'real' online than a name. As people have said, a name can be faked. An email address is functional, and so, is much more likely to be accurate. ...and should there be some catastrophic legal horror ...I'm sure IP's will be reversed, ISP's contacted and 5am raids organised. Sure... and may I ask how you expect they will not do the same to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --tim If I were involvred in the code which was the subject to a catastrophic legal horror or even, for that, if I were involved with the code ...then I am sure they WOULD! confused BC Just pointing out that information already available in the mailing list logs can and does point to each and every developer. The patch came from an email address... that's enough (under all but the most extreme cases) to hold someone legally accountable. So why resist identification by email (which you have to use anyway to send in patches), and alternatively, why require anything more than email when it does the job better than anything short of picture IDs verified in person? --tim Sorry tim, I am still confused. # I* am very much NOT a developer for this project, due to the seperation of my online and real-life nomenclature. (although technically, several of my real-life friends call me chip or bluey or similar) (in the name of pedancy, I am not a developer at all, I am a programmer) # Patches are not submitted by email, but via sourceforge. Although I* use the same nickname everywhere on the internet. Bar one really obscure exception which was requested of me to protect the anonimity of others. # I* do not resist identification via my email address. I'm not actually sure it would be possible - my* IP address is all over the shop. *in fairness, I'm not sure whether your comment is directed to me personally or just a general comment BC
Re: Signing off.
I honestly have a very hard time agreeing with either side in this discussion.So here are a few of my views:I believe that the Rockbox project can, as it wants, demand a 'real' identity for its submitters. I don't really see a problem with that. They want a submission from a name attached to a person, rather than a facade that may be one of many that person maintains. As was said earlier, this is a real project by real people. I also believe in a person being able to choose what they are called. There is a school of thought that one should not be given a name based on who their parents are, but choose one of their own, representative of themselves. While I don't necessarily agree with that, I do believe there's nothing wrong with a person choosing a name for themselves. So, that being said, I think I'm in favor of pseudonyms being allowed under the impression that for that person, that *is* their identity. I know there's some lack of professionalism in pseudonyms showing up in the credits, but I think that if that is their chosen identity, who they've made themselves to be, then some consideration should at least go into accepting that. As has been said, someone could easily lie about their name. Someone could just as easily lie and say that they've legally had their name changed to whatever pseudonym they give you. At what point do you demand proof? I think that if there is some legal concern, that a legal name should be requested from submitters, but since I haven't actually heard the original argument, and I haven't seen the legal concern echoed by Linus, Daniel, or Bjorn, I'm not sure how big a concern that really is (especially since a legal name isn't necessarly that useful. Google mine, and I guarantee you'll find a Titanic Scholar at least 1,000 times before you find an entry relating to me.) So, my perspective is that they should be allowed the identify of their choice as long as the chosen name is not in some way intentionally (or even hopefully accidentally) offensive to others, and that they're willing to stand behind that identity. It is by real people as they've said, but real people still can pick who they are. As long as someone's willing to say This is my chosen identity, and this is the identity I will maintain within this project it seems a little unfair to say No, you cannot have the name you've chosen for yourself. I go by my middle name, rather than my first. Would you have me use that were I ever to submit code, as that's what shows up on most legal documents relating to me? (Honestly, I would, as I'm not too concerned about the topic of names at all. They're just words. But I know the attachment some people have to both their given ones, and their chosen ones. The only difference to me is whether you chose it for yourself, or someone else chose it for you.)
Re: Signing off.
I honestly have a very hard time agreeing with either side in this discussion. I'm suprised to hear you say that, because I completely agree with everything you've said. -- gl
Re: Signing off.
Honestly, to me, it's entirely their choice what conditions they want to put on whether or not someone's code can be committed.The *only* problem I have with all of this is that it wasn't already in the CONTRIBUTING document. Apparently it's been discussed in the past, but I either wasn't on the appropriate mailing list yet, or very possibly not even involved with the project yet at all. To me, it seems wrong that someone does the work, submits the work, then finds they're refused for no fault of their own since the published guidelines didn't say anything about it. So that's why I don't really agree with either side. I think it's their choice, and because of that they can't really be 'wrong' in it, though everyone's free to disagree as they wish. And to clarify, I feel pseudonyms and non-traditional names are two different things, as to me at least one is hiding who you are, and the latter is a chosen self-identity. The problem is, were someone to be grandfathered in because it wasn't in the contributing doc, that opens a hole for future people to say 'well, there's already pseudonyms in there' and if a non-traditional name is accepted it opens the question 'how do you know that's no a pseudonym' (which already is mirrored in the 'how do you know it's a real name' question). It seems to me rather than arguing over this, and honestly flooding my mailbox, the Linus, Daniel and Bjorn should sit down and hammer out exactly what their whole policies on names Given, Chosen, and Pseudo are, their list of reasons for it, and publish that to this mailing list. They've certainly had the chance to see the arguments given here, but I at least don't feel like I've got a clear perspective on what the causes for the policy exactly are. So why not halt the debate, ask that they definitively respond. Then, if new issues arrive, if things are said that have not yet been argued about, they can be addressed. But if what's said is already covered by the arguments put forth here, accept that things are as they are, that whether you agree with them or not it's not your decision to make, and go on with things. Honestly, I've seen two sides of the argument, but I've seen a *lot* of simply echoed opinions from both sides, where one says Real names are good for legal reasons and the other says But you could just lie. But simply arguing back and forth isn't really going to address the issue that's come up. It needs to be put down what is the 'official' cause for wanting full names, and then instead of just calling it a bad idea, offer alternatives that meet/exceed the same goals but allow those of you who have preferred names perhaps the freedom to use them. I know there's likely not an answer that will satisfy both sides, and there's no requirement for the side in control to give any, but it's possible that if things cool down for a bit, there's some gray area in there somewhere that can be inhabited. On 3/10/06, gl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I honestly have a very hard time agreeing with either side in this discussion.I'm suprised to hear you say that, because I completely agree witheverything you've said.--gl
Re: Signing off.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Paul Louden wrote: Very wise word written! So, my perspective is that they should be allowed the identify of their choice as long as the chosen name is not in some way intentionally (or even hopefully accidentally) offensive to others, and that they're willing to stand behind that identity. In this project I get offended by names like eLiTEhAcker, and gl.tter. I don't get offended by names I can't separate from real names, like for example John Glitter. In other projects I may have different opinion. If 95% uses their real names (the poll right now) and some of the 5% uses a fake real name, then the pseudo-wanted names will have to understand the culture (even if it isn't written). Discussing with an anonymous person is also uncomfortable. I've experienced where anonymous person really goes crazy after a while and tries to destroy works for other. They feel they can do that because no one knows who they are. That experience make me support the real-name-policy. // Kjell Ericson
Re: Signing off.
Maybe an easy way to come out of this endless discussion is the following solution: - Ask the rockbox founders to change the policy to We only give cvs write access to people with real names, and an e-mail address we can verify. - And: Everybody is responsible for what he or she commits to CVS. - Plus: Only real names get into to CONTRIBUTORS file. Then they can refuse to commit anything from someone anonymous. But people like gl and John can ask someone else to take responsibility for their code, and commit it. They would not get credited on their nickname, but as far as I can tell from this discussion, that's not their main concern? I think there are enough people who are more liberal in these matters with cvs write access, so these people can just read a patch, and decide that they will take responsibility for it. I would for example have no problem at all with checking a wps viewport patch, and committing that on my own name. Tomas Salfischberger Kjell Ericson wrote: On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Paul Louden wrote: Very wise word written! So, my perspective is that they should be allowed the identify of their choice as long as the chosen name is not in some way intentionally (or even hopefully accidentally) offensive to others, and that they're willing to stand behind that identity. In this project I get offended by names like eLiTEhAcker, and gl.tter. I don't get offended by names I can't separate from real names, like for example John Glitter. In other projects I may have different opinion. If 95% uses their real names (the poll right now) and some of the 5% uses a fake real name, then the pseudo-wanted names will have to understand the culture (even if it isn't written). Discussing with an anonymous person is also uncomfortable. I've experienced where anonymous person really goes crazy after a while and tries to destroy works for other. They feel they can do that because no one knows who they are. That experience make me support the real-name-policy. // Kjell Ericson
Re: Signing off.
Neon John wrote: When one spends months in daily contact with lawyers one tends to get a good education on the subject matter at hand. OK, you can go back to playing internet.lawyer now. Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have asked you to support the legal advice that you've dispensed here, but I guess after three years of law school and twelve years in practice, I just can't help it.
Re: Signing off.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:23:41 -0500, Michael E. DiFebbo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neon John wrote: When one spends months in daily contact with lawyers one tends to get a good education on the subject matter at hand. OK, you can go back to playing internet.lawyer now. Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have asked you to support the legal advice that you've dispensed here, but I guess after three years of law school and twelve years in practice, I just can't help it. Heck, I've worked for more than 12 years as a hired expert (not an expert WITNESS - I have no desire to sit in the witness chair) in litigation support - medical electronics and software issues mostly. You and I both know that I'm not dispensing legal advice. So, I see from WestLaw that you're an associate with White and Williams LLP working with insurance litigation. Any intellectual property law experience? Ever been involved with an infringement suit? (And why are you an associate after 12 years and not a junior partner?) If not then it would be like me, a nuclear engineer, attempting to pontificate on civil engineering matters. I know something about engineering but I for sure don't know anything about, say, soil conditions in the area. Since you're a lawyer and presumably have access to Westlaw, why don't you research it and put some numbers to the supposition that someone inadvertently infringing a copyright with a non-commercial project has had to do anything other than stop infringing. I bet the number, if any, is in the single digits. OK, enough. I'm finished with this thread. It has degenerated into non-productive sniping. I think the various positions are known, if not, hopefully, engraved in stone. Perhaps after this flareup dies down this policy will be quietly reconsidered for the benefit of everyone. John --- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.johngsbbq.com Cleveland, Occupied TN A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Re: Signing off.
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, e, 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
Re: Signing off.
Jerry, I totally agree, except is it wise to loose a passionate and competent contributor because of this policy? Just because the maintainers have chosen a certain policy, doesn't mean it's right, not even necessarily for what they're trying to achieve themselves. There's room for improvement everywhere, and on all sides. And as to generousity, it _is_ incredibly generous, but it has it's perks. It's also incredibly generous to want to spend time and effort to make a contribution to a project like this worthwhile, and up to a level that it is genuinely useful to other people. It's much easier for me to code my way, my style, on my chosen platform, implementing only the things I care about and only how I care to do it. The maintainer's should equally never take that for granted. Projects die all the time. What's interesting is that this one email of mine sparked a massive response, yet most of the technical questions I posted since my arrival have gone unanswered. This is not the vibrant dev community I was expecting, so I have to ask myself: is it because there aren't many people contributing, or because of the tone the maintainers are setting? Both could point to the same problem. The obvious solution, the one I suggested to BlueChip is to make up a name and use that. The leaders have no way of knowing if the name you give is actually yours or not. I don't normally go for deception but in this case since the goal is noble and there is no harm to be done, do it. Neon, that's exactly my point. I could've done that, only it's not my style. But if I had, who would have known? That's exactly why it seems foolish to me. For all we know there's a whole bunch of developers who didn't complain and just faked a name. What brings me back to rationality is that I don't want to have to maintain a separate code fork indefinitely. Exactly, fragmenting talent is counter-productive. For myself, I'm about to do a major overhaul of the WPS system, implementing the 'viewport' idea Daniel spoke about, because I have a kick-ass WPS design that requires it. I'm proud of my iRiver peakmeter backlight patch, the file grouping is interesting, the I'm looking eventually to extend playback and record to 20bits on the iRivers - it's seems stupid to not be able to have this work committed with a credit of my chosing, which is the only thing I ask for in return. I almost tend to say grow up, get rid of the nicknames but I think some people will get offended if I do that. Yes, I would. I respect your point of view, what bothers me is that you don't respect mine. In the artistic world, pseudonyms are common. Of course, the contributors would have to be OK with not receiving any credit or copyright power Deal breaker. Credit is the only thing I ask in return for my contribution, and I certainly reserve copyright on my code at all times. 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? Technically, it should work, and you can remain as anonymous as you wish. The point is that, according to Linus, the project will not accept any contributions from unnamed (in their eyes) sources into CVS. So what's the point of my spending all this time and effort to bring my mods up to an acceptable level? I can just quickly hack in the things I care about and get on with my life. And that's my point - the project offers a lot to us, but we offer a lot to it. A bit of flexibility is all I'm looking for. firstly i dont understand why you would want to stay annonymouse.. i like the egoboost of seeing my name on the web :D As do I, I want my contributions credited as 'gl.tter', as I do in all my other software projects. Maybe I should legally change my name ; ). It is not about what license we use. To me, it is about who does what in a legal / copyright angle and that we are a real project with real people using real names. Dan, if legal concerns were the main issue, that would be worth looking at. In my offline discussion with Linus, he didn't mention it once so that's not the main issue here. And if I give you a fake name, how does that protect the project's legality? Would you want a urine sample aswell? ; ). -- gl - Original Message - From: Jerry Van Baren [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rockbox development rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se 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
Re: Signing off.
Hi, Interesting discussion. For clarity, is there an official policy on contributors and what is to be accepted into the project's sources? I haven't seen one so far. Until there is an official policy that has some legal weight (presumably with some kind of agreement that must be entered into by contributors) then this discussion is at the level of you can't play because it's my ball. If there is an official policy, which is backed up by sound reasoning, then my apologies for likening this to a playground argument. A small community could easily fork, and users are fickle; ask yourselves how much eye candy would it take to lure a user from the one true project to one with a nicer WPS? -Cam -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Signing off.
there is an official policy.. thats whats being argued about.. and it doesnt need legal backing at all... like you rightly ssay, its someone elses ball. if they dont want other ppl to play its their choice On 09/03/06, Cam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Interesting discussion. For clarity, is there an official policy on contributors and what is to be accepted into the project's sources? I haven't seen one so far. Until there is an official policy that has some legal weight (presumably with some kind of agreement that must be entered into by contributors) then this discussion is at the level of you can't play because it's my ball. If there is an official policy, which is backed up by sound reasoning, then my apologies for likening this to a playground argument. A small community could easily fork, and users are fickle; ask yourselves how much eye candy would it take to lure a user from the one true project to one with a nicer WPS? -Cam -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Signing off.
Jonathan there is an official policy.. thats whats being argued about.. and it doesnt need legal backing at all... like you rightly ssay, its someone elses ball. if they dont want other ppl to play its their choice If there's a policy, let's see it, let the policy makers defend their choices. I was thinking that the policy that has been hinted at (but not set out clearly) might have some legal basis, but more likely it's just a case of my ball. There are precedents for tracing activity on the internet to individuals in the event of illegal activity. Requiring a name from a contributor, without further checks of identity, is really a worthless identification. As a maintainer, requiring an individual's name but not checking it could put you in a worse position than accepting pseudonymous contributions. -Cam -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Signing off.
Cam wrote: For clarity, is there an official policy on contributors and what is to be accepted into the project's sources? I haven't seen one so far. Yes there is a policy. Part of it is written down in the docs/CONTRIBUTING document in CVS. Part of it is not written down anywhere, and says we don't accept anonymous contributions. It has been requested that we add this to the CONTRIBUTING document, and I will do that. Whether you believe this policy has any legal relevance or not isn't particulary interesting. Those who don't believe it does can simply skip that and focus on the social aspect that Daniel previously stated: Rockbox is real software written by real people with real names. We like it that way. -- Björn
Re: Signing off.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:01:25 +0100, Tomas Salfischberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Neon John wrote: Even though I use my real name in places like this I don't think I'd want it plastered all over the net in software. Maybe I don't understand the privacy in software madness, but your name has been recorded all over the rockbox mailinglist archives. Those archives are indexed by google, so everybody can (with a little effort) find your name, connected to rockbox. Can you explain to me why you don't care about that publicly searchable archive, but you do care about a list of developers in the credits file of this project? First off, It's MY decision where to put my name. I want to make that clear up front. I have a number of reasons why I don't want my real name associated with software. The major one being that since I live in the Lawyer's Paradise, I don't want the risk of some prick not liking the way my code works and coming back years later and suing me. Yes, I know the risk is low but since I can almost completely eliminate that risk with a 'nym, that's the route I CHOOSE to take. I'm probably a bit more sensitive to this than the average guy because I've done a good deal of work in litigation support as an expert in various areas. I've seen first-hand the kinds of silly crap that ends up in court. If you pay any attention to the litigation trade press you'll see that litigation over software is the fasting growing area out there. To a certain extent I welcome it - crap like anything microsh*t publishes ought to be litigated out of existence - but collateral damage is always a possibility and little guys like me can't take much damage and survive. If you google my name in the Usenet archives you'll see that I've written tens of thousands of articles over the years. (Actually I have used 'nyms during some periods of time. You won't be able to find all my writings because I've never publicly linked the 'nyms.) Rest assured that if I had it to do over again, my real name would never hit the net. Who could have known back then? One of the things you WON'T find is my personal address. Or phone number. At least not the correct ones. I've taken somewhat extreme measures over the years to keep these private. They can be found with enough work from things like tax records where I'm forced to disclose them but it'll take some legwork. Rather than being scared off doing creative work, I simply do it under a 'nym. Not some Starwars/trekky type of silly 'nym. Just another name. I myself think of it as an honor to be on that list, and to be part of a real team with real names working on a real project. Yes, I agree. And anywhere but the US I'd not have a problem. But that's beside the point. It's MY decision to make. I could accept the name requirement if it had anything to do at all with the quality or usefulness of RockBox. It doesn't. From this side of the pond it looks like nothing more than some guys who've found themselves with a tiny bit of power wielding it poorly. Ofcourse I understand that you do want some privacy, but nobody is asking you to state your living address, your phone number, or anything like that. It's just a name, and an e-mail address. I almost tend to say grow up, get rid of the nicknames but I think some people will get offended if I do that. Yes, and I can type your name into Google and find an amazing amount of personal information about you. If you lived in the US, that would be a flood of information. As far as growing up, I'm probably old enough to be your grand-dad. It has nothing to do with maturity and everything to do with taking prudent precautions. No different than not leaving your credit card laying around. You're fortunate to live in a country with strong personal information protection laws. Unfortunately I don't. John --- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.johngsbbq.com Cleveland, Occupied TN A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Re: Signing off.
Neon John wrote: I have a number of reasons why I don't want my real name associated with software. The major one being that since I live in the Lawyer's Paradise, I don't want the risk of some prick not liking the way my code works and coming back years later and suing me. Yes, I know the risk is low but since I can almost completely eliminate that risk with a 'nym, that's the route I CHOOSE to take. Just think about this once more... Imagine Rockbox was open for anonymous contributions and some lawyer finds a piece of code which infringes the copyright of some company. Who would have the problem then? Björn, Daniel and Linus, because they are responsible for the project and they host the project on their server. So you say that _you_ don't want to have your name in the sources, it's better if they take the responsibility for your code? I find it perfectly acceptable and understandable that they want to have the name of the contributor in the sources. Just my 2 cents, Andreas Stemmer
Re: Signing off.
Ray They don't have to explain their choices to anyone and you're in no position to demand that they do. They have no obligation to you or anyone here. This is their choice to make and they've made their decision. A little respect shown towards their wishes now goes a long way... I look on their activities expecting the same level of openness and transparency that I see in the rest of the open source world. If I can see the code that goes into Rockbox, is it unreasonable to expect to see the workings of the organisation that produces the code? Put another way, I'm happy to work with code that is licensed under the GPL. But I would certainly think less of it if it was a zip file on a web site with some vague promises about licensing. -Cam -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Signing off.
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 00:03 +, gl wrote: Bjorn, what about the point that Rockbox is most likely 'real software, written by real people with many fake names'? If you cannot enforce the accuracy of a given name, then why try? It's a form of social trust (or due diligence, if you like legal terms). Let's try another one: If you can't guarantee that all contributed code is 100% patent-free and not plagiarized, why bother trying? At some point you have to trust that contributors will not do things they shouldn't. bk
Re: Signing off.
you ppl are forgetting that the project is based in sweden.. so us law means sweet F*ck all.. also, doesnt sweden have like the worlds best copyright laws? (i.e bassically none?) On 10/03/06, Michael E. DiFebbo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neon John wrote: But I repeat, this is all an irrelevant tempest in a teapot since the ONLY thing the maintainers will ever have to do in the even there is infringement is remove the infringing code. Period. I've been trying to stay out of this pointless discussion but I can't let this go by. John, what is your basis for this statement? Are you aware that section 504(c)(2) of the United States Copyright Act allows statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful copyright infringement, and statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 for non-willful copyright infringement? Sincerely, Michael DiFebbo (my real name)
Re: Signing off.
Jonathan Gordon wrote: you ppl are forgetting that the project is based in sweden.. so us law means sweet F*ck all.. also, doesnt sweden have like the worlds best copyright laws? (i.e bassically none?) But (1) there are Rockbox contributors who are located in the U.S. and therefore subject to U.S. law and the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, and (2) there are a number of international treaties protecting intellectual property. I don't see how Neon John can make such a sweeping generalization about what damages may or may not apply if there is ever a suit brought for copyright infringement.
Re: Signing off.
On 3/8/06, gl [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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... sad, and (not less sadly) not the first time... ~lImbus
Re: Signing off.
here we go again... 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
Re: Signing off.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, 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. Since we had this debate the last time, a large amount of Open Source projects have gone a lot stricter in this department and we are certainly not alone in this stand-point. Some of them are BSD-style too. It is not about what license we use. To me, it is about who does what in a legal / copyright angle and that we are a real project with real people using real names. -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
Re: Signing off.
Hi, Neon John wrote: Even though I use my real name in places like this I don't think I'd want it plastered all over the net in software. Maybe I don't understand the privacy in software madness, but your name has been recorded all over the rockbox mailinglist archives. Those archives are indexed by google, so everybody can (with a little effort) find your name, connected to rockbox. Can you explain to me why you don't care about that publicly searchable archive, but you do care about a list of developers in the credits file of this project? I myself think of it as an honor to be on that list, and to be part of a real team with real names working on a real project. Ofcourse I understand that you do want some privacy, but nobody is asking you to state your living address, your phone number, or anything like that. It's just a name, and an e-mail address. I almost tend to say grow up, get rid of the nicknames but I think some people will get offended if I do that. Tomas Salfischberger
Re: Signing off.
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 13:33 -0500, Neon John wrote: Unfortunately you're not the first developer run off by this petty power ploy. I certainly hate to see it but there is little I can do as a user other than express my displeasure. If you care about this issue so strongly, I think the most productive thing to do would be to volunteer to 'adopt' (from a copyright/maintainance standpoint) any contributions from people who want to remain anonymous. Of course, the contributors would have to be OK with not receiving any credit or copyright power, but if they cared about that they wouldn't be making a stink over anonymity. You're using your real name anyway so you're not losing anything, Rockbox gains valuable contributions and we won't have to keep having the same dumb argument over and over again. bk
Re: Signing off.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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 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? Technically, it should work, and you can remain as anonymous as you wish. - -- Matt 'Junx' Sicker -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFED8O+5tcAKF5t41MRAklgAJ0VYsb6pt4dE+cZZ9laU+P2qHX1GwCeJe+q sLIbQF8N6+Mi5+ezNjeB1V4= =IgTj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Signing off.
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, e, 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
