I think Rado eloquently described the meritocracy of the open source philosophy. When code is shared it benefits the entire community. If someone was the first to think of a certain feature and the first to realize it in code or in a novel fashion then yes they should be credited. Not getting into legal matters it seems to me to be an issue of common courtesy and intellectual honesty. There is a GPL project that tracks down commercial companies who have basically taken GPL released code and are using it to make money without any proper attribution, further they are also violating other portions of the GPL. This is reprehensible but it still happens. The more eyes looking at code the better I say. Zach On 3/13/07, Rado S <regrado at web.de> wrote: > =- Trent Piepho wrote on Tue 13.Mar'07 at 12:03:34 -0700 -= > > > > > What I missed for the RCDs is all the nice Paradise macro features. > > > > Have/ can you extend(ed) it to make use of them in RCD, too? > > What about this one? > > > > > D'oh, are we in some kind of coding competition? > > > > I thought we were a community to work together > > > > Tell that to the people who release microsoft only clients. > > And you counter bad support with the same bad support? > Hey, you're so much better. :-/ > > > Tell that to the people who try get every feature I think of called borg. > > Neither of the 2 are reason to keep your stuff for yourself. > > > As I've learned from James, not all things called "borg" are borg. > As long as only information that is already available is used > (i.e. you have no _more_ info than other players might have), > then it's just a matter of taste how the available info is > presented: if the client has the info, go for it. > I fully agree with that. > > Even more so, given the need for easier access to the game, I'd > welcome that _all_ info would be presented to the (newbie) players > as easily as possible. > > All team-info == good (display as you see fit), > enemy-info (beyond pos visible to own team) == bad. > Do not "create" info == compute new info from given info (like > aiming aids for cloakers) > > People crying "info-borg" should think what they prefer: > - clueless twinks they can yell at and out of the game, > - newbies who learn to do the right things by doing what the info/ > client tells them even though they might not yet grasp the > underlying reasons/ concepts for it, and before they can figure > out how to _talk/read_? > > Many people act first, think/ talk later. :( > As much as this is against the _ideal_ netrek player, that's how > newbies get into it. > > So called "info-borgs" do _not_ destroy the game: despite having > the info visible (and you might know what to do with that info for > yourself), you _still_ have to coordinate with your team to > succeed (unless your whole team communicates via ESP/ telepathy). > Quiet newbies with the info ready can still be useful even though > they are mute. Over time they'll want more and begin to learn, > eventually talk/ read. > > > Tell that to people who don't have the decency to credit others > > as their source when they copy them. > > There is nothing you lose when you share your code with the > community. Quite the opposite: when you share, then all win. > The community _knows_ what you do (or don't) and they are the only > who matter, not single childish lamers to whom you pay too much > attention. > > If you share your achievements publicly, then the public will know. > That's the safest way to get credit (and respect). > (as example: nobody can claim to own linux, or when they do, they fail > because the community wouldn't let it happen, they know better) > > You distrust anyone (everyone?) of the netrek "board" (the people > who currently run what keeps netrek alive)? > > What _exact_ netrek incident are you talking about where you have > been mistreated? > > > > Paradise-2000 can (and have been) recoded into public source. > > > Features added to XP 2006 include a large number of things > > > that were found only in Paradise-2000. > > > > So why don't you credit me as the source of "a large number of > > things" instead of pretending they were your ideas? > > Why are you insisting so much on this credit thing? > Are we talking here about some money? > You can't credit ideas. Many people have ideas, but not all people > implement them nor all ideas get implemented. > > In a shared project this even doesn't matter. The only people > netrek has to fight are outside lawyers who want to make money > with other people's work, not inside members. > If it's not for the money, what else is credit good for? > Among us, the netrek community anyway?! > > Open your code, let people see, then you get credit where credit > is due. If you'd open up, you might notice that others have ideas, > too. But you don't even give a chance for that. > You are not the only/ 1st person who can do things. > > But even if, why not share it with those who will respect you for > what you do? (the community as whole) > > Not all are childish ("stealing your credit"). > Answering such childishness with likewise childishness doesn't > bring you more credit. As you might have learned (or not), people > don't remember you as > "hey, give him credit for XYZ" (even if you deserved it!), > but rather > "hey, he's the one who takes other peoples' credit to brag > about the own that he built on top of it without returning > it back for what he got for free" > and justifies it by "others stealing from him", when there is no > such a thing like "stealing credit" possible in open source, but > rather waste of resources for locked code that has to be recoded. > Is this the kind of credit you are after? > > And then there are those who make fun of you because of this, and > you still jump on it to defend rather than to "get a clue". > > Taking open code and locking it away from others is stealing. > If you want to make money with it, fine. > Otherwise let it live and grow openly and freely to flourish for all, > even for you with the help of others. > What good is it to have different people do the same thing? > Isn't it better to save the time to have 2 new things instead? > > -- > (c) Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! > EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. > You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give. > > _______________________________________________ > netrek-dev mailing list > netrek-dev at us.netrek.org > http://mailman.us.netrek.org/mailman/listinfo/netrek-dev >