Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:11:20 -0700, david <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> posted by: david <studmeow at hotmail.com>
> In a way, I can understand why a programmer wouldn't want to release
> source code... I heard one sneer that people who did that didn't want
> anyone to see their crappy code. But I think there's another reason
> why this happens:
> A Euphoria programmer gets enough experience & knowledge to write a
> decent utility (let's say up on Judith's or even Rob's level) & uploads
> it to the archive. Now a newbie come along with just enough know-how to
> do some editing, maybe write a demo, & thinks maybe he can jump ahead &
> increase his knowledge by editing a program. Maybe he feels he's learned
> enough with the DOS apps, & wants to try a Windows utility. So he gets
> something from the archive, hacks into it, & uploads it again. The
> original author sees the new version & checks it out:
> "HE/SHE DID WHAT!?!?!?
I think that was mentioned before...
Thing with that is though...
1. How long have the archives been around for? How many times has that
happened?
2. Rob has full control over the submissions archive. If this should
happen, it could be quickly removed.
3. The submissions archive is the central sharing point of Euphoria
programs. (see 2.)
4. Anyone to do this, newbie or not, would be villified by the
Euphoria community.
I think Visual Euphoria could be a very valuable tool...
Noone disputes ownership of your codebase. In fact, if you look at the
largest projects in Euphoria at the moment, they are usually referred
to as "Judith's IDE", "Derek Parnell's win32lib", "Pete's M Editor",
etc... even though many people have contributed to those projects. As
long as the source is open, and you incorporate peoples bug-fixes into
the release semi-regularly, there will be no question of ownership,
and the project will be far better than if it was closed source...
Many eyes make all bugs easy to find.
--
MrTrick
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
