Am Friday, 14. October 2005 22:57 schrieb Samir Saidani:
> Chris Muller <chris at funkyobjects.org> writes:
> > One more point is I don't believe code "ownership" will
> > ultimately satisfy because it requires unreasonable expectations
> > from someone (the owner) and creates a bottleneck.  How can you
> > rely on that?
>
> Putting our code in the public domain. Code ownership implies
> complexity. Personally I consider I'm writing code anonymously,
> even if the name is here for practical purpose. This code has no
> licence, and no owner. A not licenced code does not mean that you
> cannot licenced this code, it would be a contradiction. Take it and
> put whatever licences you want. The fact is that the code has no
> owner, and the illusion is that you think that you are the owner.
>
> Samir

Oh come on now, you don't think code ownership is about legal issues 
here. If some code is actively maintained by a person or a group and 
other people keep changing that code in ways the maintainer(s) do not 
like, chances are the maintainer(s) will just abandon their job. Bit 
rot sets in and if no new maintainer takes responsibility sooner or 
later people will start to complain about that code.

And last but not least it's a matter of paying respect to the 
maintainer. He or they are doing a job for the benefit of the 
community. I think they can excpect to be asked before someone starts 
editing the code. It would be another matter if you just take the 
code, change it and either not publish it or publish it as a new 
package.

Martin