On 2014-05-19, Nathann Cohen <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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? > > For me Sage is a collaborative software, not the administration's playground. > >> 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. > > Only for papers it is only a couple of them, and for Sage it would > mean adding them again and again and again. Let's not give them room > for that. > >> 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. > > Let's put this in a graveyard file. We don't have to stand this > absurdity of writing numbers where nobody reads them just to make them > happy.
well, rules are rules. If certain Ritchy Bastrad would donate 10M$ to Sage project, under the condition it be renamed Ritchy Bastard Sage, then, you know... Not many people here enjoy next to zero obligations liftime funding, like CNRS offers you, Nathann :) Cheers, Dima -- 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.
