Hi William, 2011/5/8 William <[email protected]>
> Greetings Seb, > > Your proposal looks good. > OK > > I'll defer to Matt and/or others about the use of inline. Personally > I'd try to pick hardware that could all run at the same speed and mode > and only call spi_init() once. > I'll reply to this with last Matt's message. To sum up, my opinion it's better to keep it inlined. > > You asked about headers, and I assume by that you mean the boilerplate > for author, copyright, zlib, etc. So, I am answering here. > Well, though the copyright/authors issue remains opened, I was mostly talking about the headers content as they are now. Do author, adapted-by etc... fields, as they are now, looks good to you ? For me, it's ok, I'm just asking for a confirmation from you side. > > I made some hasty remarks the past few days that I regret, and I ask > forgiveness for that. My concerns for an author's copyright remains, > but my conduct was poor. > > The future and long-term success of JALLIB is important to me. So, in > (hopefully rare) cases like this, when the decision is made to replace > an original work with a derived work, using the same filename, might > help future situations like this if we did it somewhat formally. > This situation is tricky and, as I just said, and I agree with you, the copyright/author issue remains opened, I'd really like to find a solution for the future. I'll stick to the other thread about this point. > > I am not sure exactly how to do this but I am thinking it would be > something like: move my name and copyright further down in the header > somewhere or in the comment section, and add your own name and > copyright at the top of the file. This would, it seems to me, comply > with the ZLIB clause #3. You probably had this in mind when you left > my name as author of spi_master_hw2.jal and I regret my mis-handling > of that. > Yes, I kept your name as author (then put my name as Adapted-by as I forgot it), for this reason. That said, the huge mistake I did was to bypass your consent and modify the library without your permission. When I remember my "mood" at that time, I can say I was pretty exciting about having my SD card working, I focused more on the code than on headers. I've also been involved in quite a lot of different libraries I wasn't the author of these days, so I just modified it, well, you know, like "that". It's like authorship, from copyright point of view, not credits, is shared in jallib, making decision as a team. Anyway, my fault, I apologize, and sure will check this in the future. > You all have obviously taken the SPI libraries far beyond what I > needed, and clearly at this point (with your proposal) it is a > 'derived work' and you deserve credit for that. > According to previous insights, if you accept current changes, this can be kept as the original version, the original work. This is by far my preference. Cheers, Seb -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
