Hi Guys, Quite an interesting discussion, which seems to keep us from our development work ;)
I think we've learned about the authors right and the 'adapted-by' section, which means we have 'derived work'. I suggest we add this to the JSG (and maybe even to the header itself). It has been common practice at jallib to make changes to each others libraries and thus creating derived work which substitutes the previous work, right? If so, the issue is that the original author does not recognise the need for this change and does not regard it an necessary thread to the stability of his application? I tend to think that 'jallib' can decide to include derived work (in other words: make changes as long as they mark them as such in the file itself). The point is there is no 'jallib' organisation that can decide in case there is no compromise. For this reason, Seb was assigned to the task of benevolent dictator, so I guess it is up to him to make the final decision which files are part of the jallib distribution. Having said this, I am surprised about the fuzz about this particular change. I don't keep up with the msn-like mail messages on this list, but understand this change does not change the way the library is used for current users and proper operations (to some extend) is verified. So there could have been a brief and clear message on the intent to change the library to involve the author. And the author could have verified the real risk involved and maybe do some testing. But I'm sure we all see the benefits of one set of code and recognize the need that changes might be required to accommodate future development. My 2c Joep -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
