> To publish this and sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 under the three listed > authors is plagiarism.
Hi Ed, long time no see. I think you're attributing malice where there's mere incompetence--for me at least, this is my first experience working on an academically-oriented paper, and I'm sure Dan and maybe Slava's experience in the realm is limited as well, so no doubt we've thrown in a few lego-brick expressions without appreciating the full nuance of their meaning. I know you're only trying to protect your contributions to the Factor project, but rest assured it isn't our intention to rip you or anyone else off. Getting adversarial and throwing around claims of plagiarism is just going to get everyone mad to nobody's benefit. The paper's main purpose is to introduce the Factor platform, and our goal in introducing the particular features we explain is to help make the code examples understandable to people new to Factor. So I think Dan's suggestions--removing inaccurate claims to newness which are beside the point of the paper anyway, and clarifying our acknowledgment of your and the rest of the Factor project's contributions, should be enough to make everyone happy. What do you think? -Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
