Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
→Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site
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)
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)
Line 65 ⟶ 66:
What a great idea. The task that I created when I first came to this wiki, best shuffle, is also in there. Cool! -- To have a long list of contributors and task authors in a book like this, I don't see what purpose that would serve. Nobody cares. [[User:Fwend|Fwend]] 17:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
: The problem is that with who-knows-how-many authors in various bits throughout RC, someone ''might'' care. So it's generally best to act on a pessimistic reading. CYA sucks, but it is what it is.--[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||