Developer Rules Update

[paperc07]

No but coding something that takes weeks to do, for some one to come and take it, and give the slightest credit.
is just wrong

Swiny is exactly right I don't mind donating some money especially if the profiles are worth it and good, however free is always good to.... but anyways back to the task at hand if someone codes a project and we all know how long that can take it is wrong for someone to edit it and claim it as there's, why not just say hey I changed this and say Credit's to whomever and this does not belong to me instead of trying to act like you did all the work

 

[wownerds]

this is just going to drive the developer community who do help out and create stuff and spend ENDLESS nights coding,
to just stop coding, im sure people are deffently thinking about it [...]

Though I personally don't like the arrogance your posts convey, you definitely got a point there!

 

[wulf]

Once again this.

Simply put, its my work, my time,and its me who gets to say what can be done with it.

If your philosophy is me,me,me,me,me then why share it with the community?

 

[rcadams]

there is no community.. Just admit it.

 

[ex0a]

Person A does a nice job on a CC/Profile Pack/Plugin/ETC and releases Project A.
Person B wants to add a little bit different functionality, so adds the code and gives credits to the original coder, releasing Project B.
Person A can now either maintain patches from at least one other branch, test them to make sure it's up to par, and add them to their branch, OR let Person B continue coding Project B and let Project A go into retirement.

If Person A chooses the first, they now have even more work to do to maintain a level of quality etc.
If Person A chooses the second, the community now has to hope Person B can maintain the project properly, especially if major changes are required.
If Person A chooses neither, now there are two nearly identical projects available and will continue to cause more and more confusion between end-users.

Any way it happens it is a loss to the HB community, or at least those contributing to it.

I understand why this change was made and honestly I do feel it's a step in the right direction. However, I believe it was poorly executed and poorly timed considering major changes are on the horizon with the next expansion. Again, I do think changes need to be made, but I really feel the changes that were just made are not in the best interest of the community as a whole.

Like mentioned before in this thread by various people, I think there should be some type of system for publicly releasing code from someone else's projects. If the project is dead, it should be fair game. If the author refuses to add certain features, it should be allowed to be forked. However, if the author is still actively developing, I think that users should be required to submit patches to the author of their code changes instead of just being allowed to fork the project at will. If the author then refuses to add patches that are working patches (obviously avoiding horrible code), I think it would be fair game for a fork as well.

By separating code into multiple code bases, you're just making harder for people to know which code base is the one you need to use. Does bug A exist in fork 1 and 2, or just fork 2? Does the patch for bug B in fork 3 cause the new features in the original project to break?

Overall, I feel this was rushed, done prematurely, and executed poorly. I believe the staff here should try to come up with a better solution than pissing off the dedicated developers for this software seeing as how, IN MY EXPERIENCES, it is many times the community provided code that actually performs up to par. (Note: I know things break, but it seems like HB staff have more than they can handle with the amount of code they're trying to maintain which probably is why it's easier for a developer not affiliated with the core team to maintain a more usable/functional/etc codebase.)

Oh well. This is just my opinion.

 

[wulf]

there is no community.. Just admit it.

By definition alone that statement is incorrect as we are all here with a common interest.

 

[rcadams]

Common interest should be to make HB better by supported community CC's and Profiles.. Not people arguging me code is my code. pew pew
OTE=wulf;520791]By definition alone that statement is incorrect as we are all here with a common interest.[/QUOTE]

 

[Croga]

Simply put, its my work, my time,and its me who gets to say what can be done with it.

Simply put; it's HB's code you are working off. They get to say what can be done with it. If they decide that any derived work (which all CCs, plugins and profiles are) will fall under the BSD license then they can do that and you can't do anything about it.
Sorry mastahg but your statement is factually wrong.

In the end the HB developers own all the rights to the HB classes you use in your CCs. If they state that these classes fall under a license that forces derivative works to fall under the same license then you will have to obey that license.

 

[Zoinx]

I didn't know this was all about how big someone's epeen was, it seems to me certain HB members/developers are more concerned about being the master of the own universe as far as programming goes than helping a community...quite sad really.

I think if people are developing code for praise, admiration or profit then they should create there own website and not post "source code" on a public forum.

I agree with you 100%, but here is a simpler way to explain what you are saying:

 

[wulfen]

If Person A chooses the first, they now have even more work to do to maintain a level of quality etc.
If Person A chooses the second, the community now has to hope Person B can maintain the project properly, especially if major changes are required.
If Person A chooses neither, now there are two nearly identical projects available and will continue to cause more and more confusion between end-users.

1 do you mean the continuous improvement isn't expected, by the community?
2 if person B doesn't, then the project gets forgotten about just like if person A does the same...just like what happens currently
3 if you are confused as an "end user"as to... i dont see any way to possibly get confused... people download a couple CC/plugins/profiles and try them they use the one they like/work. how is that different than what is presently done?

 

[Venus112]

So by this statement Microsoft owns every document I've written in Microsoft Word?

 

[wownerds]

So by this statement Microsoft owns every document I've written in Microsoft Word?

As well as the inventors of C# own all of HB's core code...

 

[wulfen]

except for the fact that purchasing a valid license gives you permission to use both of those products to develop/word process and use any available feature of the software. with the intent of resale

and if you purchased say a student license for VS2010 then yes they would be able to claim ownership of any work you tried to market

 

[Venus112]

except for the fact that purchasing a valid license gives you permission to use both of those products to develop/word process and use any available feature of the software. with the intent of resale

and if you purchased say a student license for VS2010 then yes they would be able to claim ownership of any work you tried to market

Rephrase please

 

[mastahg]

Simply put; it's HB's code you are working off. They get to say what can be done with it. If they decide that any derived work (which all CCs, plugins and profiles are) will fall under the BSD license then they can do that and you can't do anything about it.
Sorry mastahg but your statement is factually wrong.

In the end the HB developers own all the rights to the HB classes you use in your CCs. If they state that these classes fall under a license that forces derivative works to fall under the same license then you will have to obey that license.

Yea, if the law worked like that, but it doesn't.

You could write a CC, Profile, Plugin without ever having downloaded honorbuddy.

 

[MadDog]

At the moment the devs are doing a good job of scaring unpaid developers off.

 

[wulf]

Yea, if the law worked like that, but it doesn't.

You could write a CC, Profile, Plugin without ever having downloaded honorbuddy.

Now I remember...you are the author of Vangaurd, that explains your comments and re-enforces my previous post.
http://www.thebuddyforum.com/honorb...1019-developer-rules-update-2.html#post520778

At the moment the devs are doing a good job of scaring unpaid developers off.

now this is all beginning to make sense...

Oh and Wulfen, you didn't get permission to use part of my forum name ;-) /sarcasm

 

[wulfen]

Rephrase please

true i should say royalties not ownership...

 

[Hawker]

Wait so let me get this right?

people spend endless nights coding, for some 1 to come and take it, give tiny credits and b lyke yeah i g0t teh ub3r coding skills...??
yet the people who stay up

This is the dumbest thing i have ever herd hands down..

Exactly. You get the credit. If someone else develops your stuff further and you like what they done, you are free to copy what they add.

 

[Croga]

Yea, if the law worked like that, but it doesn't.

Actually; it does. Every time you use copyrighted code (which is basically every class available in C# libraries) you will need to assure yourself that you're abiding by those copyrights. For the base C# (and whatever other language) classes, the copyright statement will most probably say that you're free to use it in whatever way you want. For the HB classes, the HB developers have the right to force the BSD license upon you. In that case, extending the HB code by building a CC means you willingly go into a contract stating that you will follow that same BSD license.

You could write a CC, Profile, Plugin without ever having downloaded honorbuddy.

Good luck with that.... If you don't have access to the wiki and you don't have access to the source DLLs you will never know what classes to use. If you don't have access to HB itself you will never be able to test and debug it. So once again; Good luck with that.