> Forgive my tone, but honestly, if an outsider sees messages like the > above with a hint of "we'll give proper citation sif the original > authors help us", it should come as no surprise that upstream projects > are beginning to see inclusion in Sage as an asymmetrical relationship > (as commented earlier in this thread) , that benefits entirely one > party at the expense of the work of the other.
I think the issue at hand is given a computation in Sage, how can the end user find out which software was used in doing that computation. A similar situation would be if a numpy user used numpy.fftpack, how would they figure out which backend was used so that they could properly cite it. > I know for a fact that this is emphatically NOT what William wants, > and that he is highly scrupulous of accreditation. But I do think > that the project as a whole needs to do a better job of maintaining > healthy, *collaborative, 2-way* relationships with all of its upstream > projects. Sage would simply not exist if it weren't for the hundreds > of thousands of lines of other code it can build upon. That's a well > that I think would be a shame to poison. > > Yes, it's more work to collaborate with someone than to simply take > the fruits of their labor. But it's better in the long run. And it > also happens to be the right thing to do, which some of us still care > about. As someone who is "upstream", did you have any specific ideas / examples in mind? --Mike --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
