On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 18:07 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 09:01 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > I have no personal opinion about this. but realise that it's already > > public, so I'm not sure it makes any real difference or not at this > > point. > > The real difference is the attribution. People can get the code not even > being able to find the copyright holder. > > > what other choice do we have? if we can't believe them then we could > > never accept patches. > > Then is it OK if some random person from, say, Somalia signs, say, > Solaris's source code to Novell? Will you include the work in Novell's > products? whoa, calm down. I think you're just upset that someone posted your code and claimed it as their own (understandable), but you have to realise that trust has to start somewhere. if an open source project can't trust code from strangers, then open source software as a whole will just die because no project could ever accept contributions. how did you know you could trust patches being submitted to your project? did you know all the contributors to be trustworthy? how? at some point in the past, every open source contributor in the "community" must have had to submit a patch before he was "well known". if no one trusted that his code wasn't lifted from somewhere, then his patches never would have been accepted and he'd never have become "well known". so you see, we have a chicken & egg problem here. > > > afaik, if they sign, then our butts are protected legally. > > Is it? Even when you have no longer access to the person? the blame goes to the person who signed the legal document saying he takes responsibility for it, so yes. -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc. fejj ximian com - www.novell.com
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature