(18-07-2016, 03:46 AM)z3bra Wrote: Third, their "fork" policy. They make it so easy to steal code from other people that it bother me. The idea behind forking is to make it easier for people to contribute. In the end, it makes it easier for people to get credit for someone else's work.

I have thought about the question if there was a cryptographic method
of proving that some information was created by a person and only that person.
The only method I could think of is blockchain, which is quite complicated and
requires some motivation to verify the chain (some sort of money). This is too
hard.

(18-07-2016, 03:46 AM)z3bra Wrote: I much prefer the "old-school" way to share code, using git-daemon and a website, on a custom server. This way, you're responsible for your code, and people refer to YOUR website to access/modify/fix the code. And when they send patches, they do so to get something fixed rather than having their name mentionned.

I am also quite convinced that the old way with patches over e-mail or mailing lists for big projects.
But I think it is a problem to assume every programmer or open-source enthusiast is willing to set
up a git/web server. It is simply not convenient, and it's not easy.

I would like to see a decentralized way, such as with ipfs, simply cloning from ipfs with git,
writing your patches and sending them per email.

But centralization is of course always bad. Github is not beneficial, it's a company,
and I have a deep natural distrust for companies.