Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> Sorry if the attribution of the patches were lost in some
> moment, but we usually don't care so much about these kind of things.
> I can understand that they are important for you, but you should
> also try to understand that other people have relaxed point of
> views and can make mistakes about it. This is what I am trying to
> solve now.
You have no idea what can of worms you just opened up with admitting to
a "relaxed" attitude towards contributions. I now have to consider that
you may have a serious provenance issue with your code, and may well
have GPL'd code lifted from gcc in your tree. Modify it a bit, slap an
ISC license on it, and presto, you claim credit.
It doesn't work that way. Integrity might be old-fashioned, but it
never goes out of style.
tim
--
Second Order Social Dilemma: the solution looks a lot like
the people who get to pick the people to solve the problem.
--
To unsubscribe send a mail to scc-dev+unsubscribe_at_simple-cc.org
Received on Wed 15 Mar 2023 - 20:00:36 CET