Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Dec 2009 20:51 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Yesterday, we reported that the Software Freedom Law Center had started a lawsuit against several companies who they claim violated the GPL. The subject of the violation was BusBox, and the SFLC claims it is operating on behalf of the authors of BusyBox. Original BusyBox author Bruce Perens, however, begs to differ.
Order by: Score:
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Since I'm not entirely sure what the details are of this "Copyright replacement" scheme that Perens alludes to, I have to assume it goes something like this:

1) Find a module with an author we don't want any more
2) Rewrite said module, changing some percentage of the code
3) Remove previous author's name, replace with our own.

If this was done methodically, with the intention of removing the original author, that's just plain nasty.

It's one thing to rewrite a module to be cleaner code, more efficient, follow a better coding style, etc. - but to intentionally remove the previous author is of questionable ethic. The original author went through all the trouble of defining the behavior and logic, restating the same code with your own style/method doesn't make the original author's work any less important.

Note: I have no clue if this does/doesn't stand up in court, nor whether this is what actually took place - it's just my speculation.

Reply Score: 5

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

It's one thing to rewrite a module to be cleaner code, more efficient, follow a better coding style, etc. - but to intentionally remove the previous author is of questionable ethic. The original author went through all the trouble of defining the behavior and logic, restating the same code with your own style/method doesn't make the original author's work any less important.


Well, the new code will still be derived work of the old code, so the original author still retains the copyright.

Basically, Perens can appeal to common decency in this, but I don't think he has legal basis for his complaint (not does he insist on having one). He's just saying that the lawsuit in question is a dirty trick (but that's what lawsuits usually are).

OTOH, if the offending distributors of Busybox failed to get something as simple as GPL compliance done right (which is basically about providing a tarball of the code they used to compile the thing), I'm surprised they managed to deliver a device in the first place.

Reply Score: 4

Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17


OTOH, if the offending distributors of Busybox failed to get something as simple as GPL compliance done right (which is basically about providing a tarball of the code they used to compile the thing), I'm surprised they managed to deliver a device in the first place.


I'm betting they thought that since it was embedded stuff, no one would bother to dig inside and check. Hopefully this will teach future companies that they will be found out, so just release the code, its painless enough if you do it right from the beginning.

Reply Score: 3

JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

No, Bruce is not claiming that the lawsuit is a dirty trick. His whole argument is that he thinks he is a copyright holder in the current BusyBox and the current developers say that he is not.

Reply Score: 3

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

His whole argument is that he thinks he is a copyright holder in the current BusyBox and the current developers say that he is not.


I didn't see that in Bruce's post.

Moreover, Bruce has been around the block for a while, and is well aware that disclaiming his copyright is impossible under the terms of GPL.

Reply Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I didn't see that in Bruce's post.


A lot of the details were discussed in the slashdot comments by Bruce himself - since he submitted his blog post there and it made the slashdot front page.

Reply Score: 2

sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

If derived code is extended to mean code that was originally based on something someone once wrote even though it doesn't include any of the original code, then Wine, GNU, all the BSDs and even Linux are violating copyright.

Wine devs are in the best position as they can claim that they have not ever seen a line of Windows code(dubious as that would be) but their software is still obviously built after Windows and using windows as a reference.

As for others, all the original GNU and BSD devs had read and learnt from AT&T code as had Linus from Tanenbaum's. They also used that code as a base for their original systems linking to parts of it either directly or indirectly. The FSF claims that separate binaries are infringing too if they can only work with help from GPL code, so it should work the other way as well.

Basically if that reasoning were to be upheld in Court, most open source software would be infringing on someone's copyright.

Reply Score: 3

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

If derived code is extended to mean code that was originally based on something someone once wrote even though it doesn't include any of the original code, then Wine, GNU, all the BSDs and even Linux are violating copyright.
Wine devs are in the best position as they can claim that they have not ever seen a line of Windows code(dubious as that would be)

dubious? why? AFAIK Wine developers are very careful that noone who has actually seen Windows code can make contributions. If code looks fishy then they don't accept it. Exactly because it would get them in a lot of legal trouble. There was even the thing about ReactOS, with someone accusing them of having used or seen Windows code and they did a full audit to make sure that wasn't the case.

but their software is still obviously built after Windows and using windows as a reference.

As for others, all the original GNU and BSD devs had read and learnt from AT&T code as had Linus from Tanenbaum's. They also used that code as a base for their original systems linking to parts of it either directly or indirectly. The FSF claims that separate binaries are infringing too if they can only work with help from GPL code, so it should work the other way as well.

Firstly quite a bit of code people looked at was/is public domain. Secondly a lot of the programming in Linux BSD ... was actually done according to standards (POSIX anyone) so looking at the standard not the original code. Thirdly if you only take a small part of a program, especially if you even cite the original implementation, that probably falls under fair use.

Basically if that reasoning were to be upheld in Court, most open source software would be infringing on someone's copyright.


IMO you're incorrect. Thing about a book, if you took e.g. Harry Potter and rewrote the whole book changing all the formulations, but not the story you would quite certainly be infringing copyright and probably be sued.

Reply Score: 1

sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26


dubious? why? AFAIK Wine developers are very careful that noone who has actually seen Windows code can make contributions.


I do believe that they try to write original code clean from any MS influence. And I think they are doing a good job.

However, are we to believe that no one has ever seen a function disassembled in a debugger even before working on Wine? That no one has ever used Windows dlls to fill gaps in unreleased versions while they develop a replacement?

I have nothing against any of the projects I named, but if copyright worked as busybox author thinks they do, they too would be infringing. Fair use isn't even a legal figure in most countries.


Firstly quite a bit of code people looked at was/is public domain. Secondly a lot of the programming in Linux BSD ... was actually done according to standards (POSIX anyone) so looking at the standard not the original code. Thirdly if you only take a small part of a program, especially if you even cite the original implementation, that probably falls under fair use.


Uhm no. Some of the alternative utilities were PD. UNIX code and more importantly the kernel and the original C libraries were not PD and all of them started from there.

By the way, the first POSIX version was released in 1989. GNU was started in 1983, and BSD in 1975.


IMO you're incorrect. Thing about a book, if you took e.g. Harry Potter and rewrote the whole book changing all the formulations, but not the story you would quite certainly be infringing copyright and probably be sued.


That is called plagiarism. A close relative of trademarks. I don't think it has ever been applied to software itself as it doesn't make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

Edited 2009-12-16 12:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04


"
IMO you're incorrect. Thing about a book, if you took e.g. Harry Potter and rewrote the whole book changing all the formulations, but not the story you would quite certainly be infringing copyright and probably be sued.


That is called plagiarism. A close relative of trademarks. I don't think it has ever been applied to software itself as it doesn't make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism">http://en.wikipedia.or...
"

Rubbish, did you even read the wikipedia article?
From the article:

Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.


So lets make the case even clearer:
You are rewriting every phrase of Harry Potter but leave the story as is. At the beginning of the Book you clearly state that your work is a an effort to rewrite Rowlings work in your own words. This cannot be plagiarism because you are not claiming sole authorship, but you still will be sued for copyright infringement and loose. Otherwise you could just create a translation of Harry Potter in your language and you would not commit copyright, are you really trying to say that?

Reply Score: 1

sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

No, translations are covered by copyright because the Berne convention and copyright laws specifically state so. It is not clear at all that they should be.

Character names are not protected by copyright, their exact description is. If Mi¢key Mou$e wasn't trademarked you could write a story about an antropomorphic mouse called Mi¢key who goes to visit his dog friend called Goof¥ and it wouldn't be protected as long as their descriptions(drawings or text) or significant parts thereof were exactly like the copyrighted ones. General ideas cannot be copyrighted.

The thing being argued here I guess is that the original author has the same rights as derivators for derivative works even when there is nothing there left from their original work to copy. The software people and their lawyers certainly don't seem to think so and neither do some judges in the USA (USL vs BSDi).

Reply Score: 2

sindhudweep Member since:
2009-12-16

Actually it seems that Bruce Perens doesn't seem to have any remaining code in BusyBox.

This is primarily because he hasn't contributed to the project since 1996 (over a decade ago).

See http://busybox.net/~landley/forensics.txt for the details of the analysis and the rationale.

Reply Score: 3

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Reading that document it seems to me like Rob Landley is a bit of a dickhead and really does not have much understanding about copyright. So the whole thing was started off when Rob wanted to relicense busybox under GPLv2 only, instead of GPLv2 or any later version which it was previously. Bruce Perens who wrote BusyBox originally but didn't contribute for a number of years but was still a copyright holder objected to this.
From the document:
"
...(despite being asked
to fork the project from any of the existing releases if he felt that strongly
about the issue, plus repeated assurance that existing releases remained under
the licenses they had already been released under, and a persistent failure
to explain how "GPLv2" wasn't a compatible subset of "GPLv2 or later").
"
I would say that this is very obvious. You can't release a new version of a GPL software under a more restrictive license than before "GPLv2 only" is clearly more restrictive than "GPLv2 or later" even if the original version remain GPLv2 or later they are still a derivative work and contain pieces with the original copyright. To say just fork is really smacking someone in the face, and I understand why Bruce got more confrontational about this (Rob states this).

Reply Score: 1

chaslinux Member since:
2008-07-17

Bruce may not have contributed code since 1996 but that doesn't mean all his code was gone then. Bruce seems to be asserting that some of the devices in question use Busybox versions that contain code he wrote.

Reply Score: 1

v Why GPL then?
by antik on Tue 15th Dec 2009 21:45 UTC
RE: Why GPL then?
by vivainio on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:01 UTC in reply to "Why GPL then?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Choose real freedom and abandon GPL wreck NOW!


Or, learn what "linker" does. I learned it in my teens when playing with QuickBasic, but apparently you need special consultants to grok the concept these days.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why GPL then?
by umccullough on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:02 UTC in reply to "Why GPL then?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

GPL is not suitable for business- every self declared Software "Freedom" Law Center can harass you, your client and your derivative work on behalf of developers who are paid for their consulting work by so called "violators".


While I don't totally agree, one thing in the slashdot comments that caught my attention was the assertion that someone who buys a product containing GPL code and then re-sells it is responsible for passing on the license text and source code to the next buyer.

This provides an interesting problem for retailers and used-product sales...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why GPL then?
by Macrat on Wed 16th Dec 2009 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Why GPL then?"
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27


While I don't totally agree, one thing in the slashdot comments that caught my attention was the assertion that someone who buys a product containing GPL code and then re-sells it is responsible for passing on the license text and source code to the next buyer.

This provides an interesting problem for retailers and used-product sales...


No, the GPL only says that you have to make the source code available.

You can do that by putting it on your web site, or even by including it on the CD.

Not a problem for retailers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Why GPL then?
by umccullough on Wed 16th Dec 2009 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why GPL then?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

You can do that by putting it on your web site, or even by including it on the CD.

Not a problem for retailers.


Ah, right, so simple. So when I buy a TV containing GPL firmware from Walmart, they should be providing me with the source code before I leave the store...

I suspect they have absolutely no clue whether or not the products they're selling contain GPL code or not - would you reasonably expect them to know this? Would you reasonably expect some guy selling a (potentially used) TV on Craigslist or Ebay to know he must provide the source for it as well? What if the original source is no longer available (> 2 years after original purchase date), and he cannot locate it.

These are new issues for me to consider - now I must be more mindful when re-selling anything using GPL software in the future.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Why GPL then?
by Ed W. Cogburn on Wed 16th Dec 2009 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why GPL then?"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

Ah, right, so simple. So when I buy a TV containing GPL firmware from Walmart, they should be providing me with the source code before I leave the store...


Ironic that you would use a TV as an example, since several of the high-end plasma TVs being made now use embedded Linux (and can probably be bought at Walmart). Obviously, those OEMs have no problem with GPL compliance.

now I must be more mindful when re-selling anything using GPL software in the future.


If you're a Walmart, just pass all requests/issues to the OEM, and if you're an individual selling something on Ebay, who the hell is ever going to bother to sue anyway? Its not like these lawsuits actually make anyone money! All these lawsuits we've been talking about are with OEMs (knowingly) using embedded Linux in (current) retail products.

Mountain != Mole Hill

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Why GPL then?
by umccullough on Wed 16th Dec 2009 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why GPL then?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

If you're a Walmart, just pass all requests/issues to the OEM, and if you're an individual selling something on Ebay, who the hell is ever going to bother to sue anyway? Its not like these lawsuits actually make anyone money! All these lawsuits we've been talking about are with OEMs (knowingly) using embedded Linux in (current) retail products.

Mountain != Mole Hill


Well, I dunno about mole hills here - this is the slippery slope. At what point can a distributor of GPL-enabled products simply say: "Not my fault, go to the OEM" - I believe several of the manufacturers being sued here have in fact already made that excuse (VersaTek claimed their OEM vendor used GPL, and it wasn't their fault).

Since GPL compliance isn't about money, and more about making sure everyone complies for the purpose of ensuring that all users of GPL software retain the freedom to modify it - I can't see how my individual example can be excused as less important because I'm not a Big Corporations. But whatever - I guess this is the same reason that people tend to believe copyright infringement on a small scale is "ok" while copyright infringement on a large scale is "evil".

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why GPL then?
by Ed W. Cogburn on Fri 18th Dec 2009 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why GPL then?"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

At what point can a distributor of GPL-enabled products simply say: "Not my fault, go to the OEM" - I believe several of the manufacturers being sued here have in fact already made that excuse (VersaTek claimed their OEM vendor used GPL, and it wasn't their fault).


VersaTek isn't a retail reseller like Walmart is. They are an OEM that used another OEM part that violated the GPL, without doing the usual due diligence before you use someone else's component in your own product (they apparently never even bothered to *look* at what was on that SOC they used - how many OEM's make *that* kind of mistake?).

If you're a systems integrator like VersaTek, then you can call it a slippery slope if you want, but your original 'slippery slope' example involved Walmart, a pure retail reseller, and I still don't see that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why GPL then?
by 3rdalbum on Wed 16th Dec 2009 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why GPL then?"
3rdalbum Member since:
2008-05-26

Ah, right, so simple. So when I buy a TV containing GPL firmware from Walmart, they should be providing me with the source code before I leave the store...


Usually, manufacturers will include a slip of paper or a section in the manual that lists the open-source projects, and gives you a URL where you can download the source code directly from the manufacturer or an internal component's manufacturer.

My router included a slip of paper with a link, my Walkmans both have the details on the FCC approval / warranty sheet, and I've seen Panasonic TVs which have the GPL and URL actually in the TV's "Unit Information" screen.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why GPL then?
by Beta on Thu 17th Dec 2009 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Why GPL then?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

This provides an interesting problem for retailers and used-product sales...


Not really that interesting… Let’s take an example: most games produced now that use external libraries choose to put copyright texts in the intro sequence, probably the most annoying place for it. But what if they put it on a piece of paper inside the case, like they do now with GPL notices? That paper could be lost, and then once the game is resold, it no longer bares the licence texts. Exact same issue.

Manufacturers would solve it if they included the notice in the product (System About menu?) and if they included a CD in the first place. If you read the GPL, it’ll give suggestions for methods of supply. Most choose the latter, allowing customers to contact them for it. and that causes most of these issues :^)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why GPL then?
by JoeBuck on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:50 UTC in reply to "Why GPL then?"
JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

The GPL is easy to comply with, and many products that contain GPL code get it right.

However, those who worry about it can write their own code, or buy proprietary code. There is no free lunch: if you use open source software you have to comply with the terms.

Reply Score: 5

Bruce
by strcpy on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:22 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

Sounds like old Bruce is at it again, either (once again) wanting his name on the wall or seeking for monetary compensation.

Edited 2009-12-15 22:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bruce
by ralsina on Tue 15th Dec 2009 23:46 UTC in reply to "Bruce"
ralsina Member since:
2007-08-14

Well, the part (paraphrasing here) about how the companies should pay him a consultancy fee instead of working with the SFLC should tip you off ;-)

Reply Score: 3

4front
Member since:
2005-09-19

And put it out as free (and i mean REALLY FREE) software.....that'll teach FSF from being as much a license stickler as Microsoft.

Reply Score: 3

v GPL lawyers...
by Kishe on Tue 15th Dec 2009 23:17 UTC
RE: GPL lawyers...
by Ed W. Cogburn on Wed 16th Dec 2009 05:50 UTC in reply to "GPL lawyers..."
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

GPL Lawyers are the new ambulance chasers!


Where's the profit motive?

Geez, some of you anti-GPL zealots are just as funny as the GPL zealots...

Reply Score: 4

The other side of the story...
by smitty on Wed 16th Dec 2009 04:07 UTC
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/12/former-busybox-cont...

He uses the phrase "other developers" several times in his statement in reference to other people who have suffered various perceived wrongs allegedly perpetrated by the current maintainers, but he's not exactly specific. Nobody else has come forward to complain, and his effort to nominate himself as the spokesperson, despite not having contributed code to the project in years, is disingenuous. His grievances also don't change the fact that the current maintainers, as present copyright holders, have sufficient standing to file the lawsuit.


Edited 2009-12-16 04:08 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: The other side of the story...
by cycoj on Wed 16th Dec 2009 23:55 UTC in reply to "The other side of the story..."
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/12/former-busybox-cont... http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/12/former-busybox-contrib utor-upset-about-gpl-lawsuit.ars" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/12/former-busybox-cont...

He uses the phrase "other developers" several times in his statement in reference to other people who have suffered various perceived wrongs allegedly perpetrated by the current maintainers, but he's not exactly specific. Nobody else has come forward to complain, and his effort to nominate himself as the spokesperson, despite not having contributed code to the project in years, is disingenuous. His grievances also don't change the fact that the current maintainers, as present copyright holders, have sufficient standing to file the lawsuit.


Well this post on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1479552&cid=30453552
seems to indicate that there's at least one other developer who feels the same as Bruce and he was the guy who maintained BusyBox after Bruce.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by dexter11
by dexter11 on Wed 16th Dec 2009 10:59 UTC
dexter11
Member since:
2008-01-11

Here's Rob Landley's corresponding blog post: http://www.landley.net/notes.html#15-12-2009
He also seems to seriously dislike SFLC and Bruce Perens ("That man is the reason I stopped doing BusyBox development.").

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by dexter11
by strcpy on Wed 16th Dec 2009 11:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by dexter11"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

More fuel to the flames.

Few quotes:


The only reason that toolchain hadn't already been replaced was that after the first lawsuit back in 2003, Cisco washed their hands of Linux for five years and outsourced maintenance of existing projects to Taiwan, and switched their new routers to VxWorks instead. They had just gotten over that a few months before this lawsuit was filed, and their new projects were using toolchains built from source in-house (instead of supplied by an outside vendor).



That's why I'm not involved in the current round of Busybox suits. I have zero faith that the SFLC understands which lawsuits are in the interests of the community, and which are the equivalent of patent trolling. Humoring the more zealous and clueless excesses of the FSF's idealism division (the parts that call Tim O'Reilley a "parasite" for producing good documentation for sale, and say that having a day job writing proprietary code is "a sin")... That's not helpful to Linux. We have enough trouble distancing ourselves from the lunatic fringe as it is.



Oh, one other fun detail: the code drops we did get from the rounds of suits I was involved with? As far as I know, it didn't result in a single line added to the BusyBox repository. From an engineering perspective, the entire exercise was _completely_useless_.



I dunno how "public" a blog entry is. (My sick cat is doing much better, thanks.) But yeah: not involved this time, done enough damage already. Driving companies away from Linux while giving the FSF's screwball division a bigger soapbox is not what I signed up for, so I didn't re-enlist for the current round.



Bruce abandoned BusyBox two years before Erik Andersen picked up the dead code and re-launched it, and then Bruce didn't bother to post or subscribe to Erik's new list for most of a decade (until he suddenly showed up not to contribute code but to be a license troll, at which time Bruce's web page said that BusyBox was maintained by Lineo, a company that Erik had left something like seven years earlier).

It wouldn't help the SFLC to involve Bruce because he has nothing to do with BusyBox. That's a significant reason BusyBox has been as successful as it has: Bruce's _lack_ of involvement in it.


Now let's wait until the zealot department of OSNews comes and debunks this viewpoint from inside.

Edited 2009-12-16 11:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dexter11
by cycoj on Wed 16th Dec 2009 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dexter11"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04


Bruce abandoned BusyBox two years before Erik Andersen picked up the dead code and re-launched it, and then Bruce didn't bother to post or subscribe to Erik's new list for most of a decade (until he suddenly showed up not to contribute code but to be a license troll, at which time Bruce's web page said that BusyBox was maintained by Lineo, a company that Erik had left something like seven years earlier).

It wouldn't help the SFLC to involve Bruce because he has nothing to do with BusyBox. That's a significant reason BusyBox has been as successful as it has: Bruce's _lack_ of involvement in it.


Rob seems to be an idiot, what he calls license trolling actually means that Rob was trying to change the BusyBox license from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only", at the time Bruce definitely still had copyrighted code inside BusyBox, and objected to this change, which he had every right, actually to change the license like that Rob would have had to contact everyone with copyright in BusyBox and get explicit permission to do so. Somehow he thought because he's the new maintainer he can do whatever he likes with the license. So because Bruce objected to the change, Rob went on a quest to "cleanse" all of Bruce's code from BusyBox for the sole reason so he could change GPLv2 or later to GPLv2, who's the license zealot?!

Anyway you can read all this in the rational for this change written by Rob, posted a little earlier in this thread.

Reply Score: 1

mfccmf
Member since:
2009-05-07

Off the wall idea here. (kinda sarcastic just cuz no one thought of it) so i'm kinda ign

Edited 2009-12-17 13:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

mfccmf
Member since:
2009-05-07

Off the wall idea here. (kinda sarcastic just cuz no one thought of it) so i'm kinda ignorant but i think in the GPL is where it is sepcified that a package which is under the GPL must contain a readme file with howto install run and a description (maybe no description) of the package. So why not have a writ to have an Authors file that contains who commited what code , at which revision, and ruffly the % of their current code in the current version (ok last part seems kinda like a nightmare unless the coder added comments on where their stuff ended and began.) Either way how hard can it be to keep a _ required _ file in all packages to who actaully wrote the source.

From here scrips could be written to check Author Files for consistancy. Say one dev's code is removed and they are not longer in the project for app "X" So this is commented in the Authors file and kept clean and clear, oh how usefull would this be? (SCO any one?)

Alright I'm Out.

Reply Score: 1