> > > Again I strongly disagree with removing all the AUTHOR: blocks from
> > > the Sage docstrings.
The following is from the GPL v3:
"""
...
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders
of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
* a) ...
* b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices
or author attributions ...
"""
Disturbing discussions like this seriously make me consider adding
some provision like this to at least the code I have contributed. If
people were to start removing my name from software I have spent hard
time writing, Sage would be down one developer. The example with
graph.py is great, because in fact many code submissions Jason was
making were coming in without names corresponding to the patches,
simply because Jason was using a slightly different revision control
program. If it weren't for his name in the code itself, it might not
be there at all.
Recall: we are not the borg. We all have names. What is the real
objective here? I'd like to help develop the best math software in the
world, and get credit for it. In the kind of job market many of us
face, this is what differentiates different people vying for the same
job. Ownership and credit are very different things. Tell me this- why
are we so worried about owning something that is free, that anyone can
change and distribute, and whose goal is to be available to everyone?
-- Robert L. Miller
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
