| 1 |
On 06/10/2018 04:34 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Copyright Attribution |
| 6 |
> --------------------- |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> All files included in Gentoo projects must contain an appropriate |
| 9 |
> copyright notice, as defined by this policy. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> A proper copyright notice appears near the top of the file, and reads:: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Copyright YEARS LARGEST-CONTRIBUTOR [OTHER-CONTRIBUTORS] and others |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The largest contributor is whatever entity owns copyright to some |
| 16 |
> portion of the largest number of lines in the file. Additional |
| 17 |
> contributors can be listed, but this is neither required nor |
| 18 |
> recommended. The "and others" text may be omitted if the explicitly |
| 19 |
> listed contributors hold copyright to the entire file. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Why is this not recommended? Here are a couple of scenarios that came to |
| 22 |
mind that lead to me to question how that would play out: |
| 23 |
If developer A writes 51% of the lines of an ebuild and developer B |
| 24 |
writes 49%, should B not be listed? |
| 25 |
What if all the metadata lines defining variables consists of 75% of the |
| 26 |
file and was written by A, but the core functionality of the ebuild (25% |
| 27 |
by size) was written by B? |
| 28 |
If A writes an ebuild, and B replaces a majority (>50%) of the ebuild, |
| 29 |
should B remove A from attribution? |
| 30 |
I think that specifying that substantial (though not necessarily |
| 31 |
specific in defining this) contributions/contributors should included in |
| 32 |
the copyright attribution and that substantial contribution attribution |
| 33 |
*is* recommended. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
[...] |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
NP-Hardass |
Archives