I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about: in papers is it common practise to acknowledge funding sources. Indeed this is often required. If a *substantial* piece of code is one of the funding outcomes shouldn't this be acknowledged?
I have not been putting grant information into my code as I do agree that in some ways adding grant information is like spam. Nonetheless, I think that we probably all should start doing this if we want to maintain that writing code should count as a research output, much like papers do. I would have thought that the "correct" way to do this would be by adding a brief sentence to the AUTHORS: block and the top of the file. This way when the code evolves later the correct attribution remains in place. Andrew On Sunday, 18 May 2014 21:04:00 UTC+10, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > > I don't have a strong view on it, but what if a Sage developer uses > source > > code from someone else? Should they remove any similar comments that > already > > exist? > > Well, most of this codes goes into packages anyway, doesn't it ? > > The thing is that we shouldn't let the administration of all of the > developpers' country define by themselves what should appear in the source > code of an open-source project. Given the number of developpers that are > somehow supported by grants, doing otherwise could end badly :-P > > Nathann > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
