Anonymous user
Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
→Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site: Thanks Michael.
(→Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site: Thanks Michael.) |
|||
Line 59:
Personally, If they had acknowledged that the task descriptions take time and expertise to create and are NOT authored by them, added an explanation of how to look at authorship through RC page histories and added links to each task page from every task they had used (in the style of some of their RC external links that they have left in), then that may help; but they seem to have concentrated merely on the examples they may have written in PicoLisp and, maybe by ommision, they claim authorship of the task descriptions too. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
: First, chill! Second, I was informed a few weeks ago in IRC, when they asked me for advice wrt copyrights and GFDL. I gave them my understanding of how things work. Second, I was asked to write a forward nine days ago (whereupon I asked for a reminder in nine days, as I was about to have an extremely busy week, fitting 40 hours of work into three days, a wedding and a family emergency) Third, they're not required to give anyone notification, so long as as they conform to the license requirements. Now, they glitched, but it's fixable. Now here's the beauty of it: It's on Github, which means it's eminently reviewable and fixable. Someone reported the copyright glitch to Github, landing them in hot water. So now tempers are high all around. And that makes things difficult. All that's required to get them in conformance is a list of authors of the task ''descriptions'', because it's a given that they already have the copyright over the code examples they're using. I devised a reasonably simple algorithm to come up with the list for a given task. I don't have time to flesh it into code, but I'll drop it into [[Task Description Authors]] as a draft task momentarily.--[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
::Hi Michael, thanks for your explanation. I guess the picolisp authors aren't required to join in this discussion either, which is what I would have preferred.
P.S. doesn't the license state that some attempt at stating authorship needs to be given? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)▼
::If ''they'' had given the site a heads-up before publication then I wouldn't be surprised if RC contributors could have helped them in their endeavours. An announcement by them, with a meaningful sub-heading or a user sub-page off their User page, would have got some attention here, but then, they aren't required to do that either. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 03:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
▲P.S.
Here is how [http://docs.python.org/py3k/about.html contributors to the Python documentation] are listed. It gives a list of around 230 names and allows for consideration of additions. Nothing like that is done in this PicoLisp book. It seems to belittle the contributors of around a quarter of the text of the book. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 11:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||