(18-07-2016, 04:37 AM)oxa Wrote: But I thought we established code takes precedent? Im sure this isnt the case, but if someone took your code and created something you couldn't imagine and the only credit/notice you got was being the crap they shined up are you content that the better code lives on?

I'm certainly not perfect, and neither is my code, nor are my ideas. For each project I create, ithere are issues, bugs, and it lacks features. I open-source my code, because I want people to use it, and help me fixing issues. The problem with github "forking" is that it distributes the efforts between multiple persons/organisations. Take the "ed25519" library on github for example. Original implementation is by orlp. There are at least 2 significant forks: rdeker's and evilrix's. One making it compatible with other implementations, the other adding support for signing in chunks. Which one should you use? That's 3 implementations of the same software in the wild, each being "valid". If you look at the fork graph, you can see that some of these forks have been forked, and so on, resulting in even more "valid" implementations. This leads to a very confusing state, where if you want a feature, you start relying on a "not-so-unofficial" version, which might at some point disappear, breaking your software.

On the other end, take a software like [dwm](http://dwm.suckless.org/). There is a specific website for it, the code is hosted in the same domain, and to contribute, people send patches. There is only patches applying on the original code, and no full copies of it available for download. It means that there is only one code to rely on, which is better for the users.

I have seen a lot of effort duplication in the open-source world, and that's what bother me the most. I find it irritating that some people find bugs in your code, figure out a fix, and decide to shit on your head by simply saying "Hey, I fixed his code, use my version now", leaving the author with a buggy version.

---

(18-07-2016, 06:43 AM)venam Wrote: he "stealing" aspect or credits appropriation has been there before in a lot of other places

That's true, of course. But I personnally think that github makes it even easier to do so. I do agree though, that github helped a lot to promote open-sourcing, and I'm grateful to them for that. But hey, as the proverb says:

Quote:You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

To go back to the original topic, I think opensourcing to the mass is a good idea. It helps improving the software a lot, getting new/fresh ideas and so on. But special care needs to be taken to avoid losing control over the project, and that's a pretty hard thing to do.