1748 replies to this topic

[littlesat]

Why 'somehow' closed source? Note you're here on an opensource minded forum?...Sorry to say I hate this behavour asking us to merge the PEP stuff but the tool doing it is a kind of magic 'secret'....

Edited by littlesat, 16 April 2021 - 12:05.

[Persian Prince]

Why 'somehow' closed source? Note you're here on an opensource minded forum?...Sorry to say I hate this behavour asking us to merge the PEP stuff but the tool doing it is a kind of magic 'secret'....

I sent that sooner but WanWizard didn't merge it: https://github.com/O...igma2/pull/2917

[WanWizard]

Because of the copyright line.

 

An author will always retain the copyright to its work, there is no need to explicitly state it. And as OpenPLi is GPLv2 licensed, everyone has the explicit right to copy it (which doesn't change the copyright!).

[Persian Prince]

Because of the copyright line.

 

An author will always retain the copyright to its work, there is no need to explicitly state it. And as OpenPLi is GPLv2 licensed, everyone has the explicit right to copy it (which doesn't change the copyright!).

Please read https://forums.openp...dpost&p=1339187

 

I offered my help.

[littlesat]

That's it in my PEP8.sh script which is not available in any of PLi repos, if you want to have it without copyright line in enigma2 repo let me know to send a new PR without that line.

 

Should I send the PR for any other branch of your enigma2? As some teams required it for python3 branches ...

 

Also thank you for merging them all, welcome to PEP8 era everyone 

It would be nice indeed to have the script without extra licences and copy rights as this is open source minded.... 

Regarding python3 I suggest first it is recommend to discuss the appoach before 'blindly' start 'hammering' something... at this stage it sounds it is more a prestige to get it done first instead of doing it good with a bit agreement...

Edited by littlesat, 16 April 2021 - 12:21.

[Persian Prince]

 

That's it in my PEP8.sh script which is not available in any of PLi repos, if you want to have it without copyright line in enigma2 repo let me know to send a new PR without that line.

 

Should I send the PR for any other branch of your enigma2? As some teams required it for python3 branches ...

 

Also thank you for merging them all, welcome to PEP8 era everyone 

It would be nice indeed to have the script without extra licences and copy rights as this is open source minded.... 

Regarding python3 I suggest first it is recommend to discuss the appoach before 'blindly' start 'hammering' something... at this stage it sounds it is more a prestige to get it done first instead of doing it good with a bit agreement...

 

Is my script ok if I just remove:

# You're not allowed to remove my copyright or reuse this script without putting this header.

?

[Persian Prince]

https://github.com/O...igma2/pull/2926

 

https://github.com/O...lugins/pull/657

 

po updates.

[IanSav]

Hi,

 

I don't want to start any arguments, or distract from the main thrust of this thread, but, I think that it is acceptable to have copyright messages and requests in code if the author feels so inclined.  It is another way of acknowledging the author's work.  The wording of this one is strong but I think it is acceptable.  What would be a problem if the author makes stipulations that change the availability of, and access to, the finished code.  In this case this appears to simply be a message asking that the original author's authorship tag gets kept in the derivative work.

 

There are too many instances within Enigma2 development where code is copied and commits used without keeping the audit trail of the original author.  Persian Prince recently demonstrated to me a case where significant amounts of his work was used in another image and all trace of his authorship was specifically removed.  Even the commits were copied and not cherry picked to remove all the GitHub tracking.

 

I am not a lawyer and I don't have strong feelings on this matter but as an author who has had his work used without credit or acknowledgement I can see from where Persian Prince is coming.

 

Regards,

Ian.

[Dimitrij]

 

There are too many instances within Enigma2 development where code is copied and commits used without keeping the audit trail of the original author.

Does it matter? It's just a hobby.

[IanSav]

Hi Dimitrij,

 

 

There are too many instances within Enigma2 development where code is copied and commits used without keeping the audit trail of the original author.

 

Does it matter? It's just a hobby.

 

It does matter but it is not a show stopper.  It is a hobby and it is meant to be fun.  Some of the fun is diminished when your efforts are hidden and negated by others.

 

I would flip the question and ask why people go to the effort of concealing the efforts of others?

 

Regards,

Ian.

[rantanplan]

@ IanSav

This is the question you should ask your best friend PP.
He makes use of all sources and wants to be honored for having taken it over.

Crazy world...
Even the whole origins of the work disappear from many through his repeated git reset.

 

But keep going ...
you're going to ruin the rest of the community.
 

[IanSav]

Hi Rantanplan,

 

Thank you for another hostile post.  How am I "going to ruin the rest of the community"?  From my perspective our work is being readily accepted by many images who seem to be working more closely than ever.  To me that is building communities rather than ruining them!

 

Consider this the only response you will get from me until you become more considerate and social.

 

Regards,

Ian.

[WanWizard]

Exactly the reason why a single person should not try to put a stamp on things by littering his name all over the place.

 

This cooperation and alignment is very fragile, the main reason the different images exist today is exactly because of inflexibility of people to find the middle ground and play with within a group.

 

Which is sad, because it has lead to a lot of double work, effort that would have been better spent together to create a better product.

[IanSav]

Hi WanWizard,

 

Exactly the reason why a single person should not try to put a stamp on things by littering his name all over the place.

 

This cooperation and alignment is very fragile, the main reason the different images exist today is exactly because of inflexibility of people to find the middle ground and play with within a group.

 

Which is sad, because it has lead to a lot of double work, effort that would have been better spent together to create a better product.

 

I don't think I understand the meaning of your post.  Are you saying that no-one should ever be able to be acknowledged or credited for their efforts?  That seems rather harsh and unfair.  Have I misunderstood you?

 

Regards,

Ian.

[WanWizard]

I am saying that the development is a community effort, every line of code is copyight of its respective author (by law), and the entire product as such is copyright "the community".

 

So yes, with a team effort, acknowledged and credit goes to the entire team, without singling out individuals. This is complely separate from copyright.

 

Working together as a team of people towards a common goal will never work as long as there are people that put their ego above that, and walk around like some "alpha ape drumming their chest". It will create a strain on relations (as it is already clear in the different threads) and will cause any common effort to fail. Within a team, all members are equal, and there is no place for individual ego's,

[IanSav]

Hi WanWizard,

 

Sorry but I disagree with that opinion.  When I am paid to write code my employer claims ownership of the code but even then my name was coded as the author.  Open source code is extensively littered with the names of the people who wrote and support the various parts of the code.  Being credited with the results of your efforts is not necessarily a "drumming chest" event.  It provides information and understanding about the code.

 

I would also argue that when writing code for open source, where there is no other compensation or recognition, there even more reason to credit the people who are actively contributing.  Knowing who wrote what substantially contributes toward recognising and understanding the knowledge, level of contribution  and capabilities of the individual contributors.

 

Regards,

Ian.

Edited by IanSav, 16 April 2021 - 19:33.

[WanWizard]

Your are entitled to your opinion.

 

But that opinion is the main reason for open source projects (and I include OpenPLi in that) not to succeed.

 

You shouldn't do it to be able to inflate your own ego, but because of the fact you have helped other people with your efforts without asking for anything in return.

 

In the current covid context, it is the difference between shouting from the rooftops how much money you have given to charity, vs actually working in a foodbank to distribute food.

[IanSav]

Hi WanWizard,

 

If no one needs to be credited then why aren't all the contributions simply renamed to "OpenPLi Team"?  Get rid of everyone's names. 

 

If you think my comments are based on ego then you do not understand what I am saying at all.  To be quite blunt, when I review code I also look at the author to determine how and what I should be checking for in that code.  There are coders that I trust and coders that I don't trust.  Removing all names makes such optimisations impossible.  This is just one of the reasons and advantages of knowing who contributes what parts of the code.

 

For those still in the work force, having your name associated with your efforts assists in your professional development and career progression.  Stripping author's names from contributions completely negates such profession advancement opportunities.

 

There are a number of other reasons why correctly attributing effort is appropriate.  From your posts, it appears to me that you only see the "inflated ego" reasoning.  I find that disappointing.

 

Regards,

Ian.

[littlesat]

With each commit you made your name is on the commit and stayed on the history.... this should be sufficiant I suppose... no need at all to add it in the code...

Edited by littlesat, 16 April 2021 - 21:34.

[Huevos]

 

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

 

 

The source work is covered under the license.

 

Fork it and modify it, but the code and modifications are still covered by the original license.

 

 

We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

 

The way I read it is if you take a project under that license (enigma2) and modify it, the modifications must also be open source and anyone else can use those modifications however they choose. And you can't stipulate rules that are stricter than the original license on the use, i.e. what must or must not remain in a file.

 

Sometimes I wonder what makes people tick, "the code" or "being the owner".

 

Personally I couldn't care less who uses my code, or being attributed. I just hope they find it useful.

Edited by Huevos, 16 April 2021 - 22:49.