On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > NightStrike <nightstr...@gmail.com> writes: > >> It's not just present on "social community" sites. Look at the >> entirety of sourceforge. That's quite a large respository of free >> software, and yet it consists 100% of fake-named people (and please >> understand what I mean by that.) It's even a place where projects get >> tons of donations, and yet these people are completely anonymous. >> I've received donations myself through SF, even from not just one, but >> several very large corporations -- one of which you wouldn't believe >> if I showed you the proof. > > It is quite true that gcc operates by different rules. We've > established that you can contribute patches to gcc under a pseudonym, > but the FSF does require that you reveal your name to them. The FSF > requirements are widely recognized as an obstacle to contributing to > gcc. However, there are good reasons for requiring a paper trail, and > those reasons are based on events that actually happened, not merely on > theory. I would like to change things too, but, because of that > history, saying "other projects do it this way" is not a sufficient > argument for change. > > Ian >
Maybe there's a way to look at how other projects handle the same issue, and find a different solution that's more workable for more people. I don't know what event you are specifically referring to in the GCC history that created this situation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there'd be an alternate method of achieving the same results.
