Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: sh versionator.eclass
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:10:45
Message-Id: pan.2007.10.02.08.56.13@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass by Roy Marples
1 Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o> posted
2 1191306400.63509.4.camel@××××××××××××××××××.name, excerpted below, on
3 Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:26:39 +0100:
4
5 >> > > but I find interesting that
6 >> > > you ripped Ciaran's copyright while leaving the "Prod ciaranm if
7 >> > > you find something it can't handle" comment.
8 >> >
9 >> > I copied and pasted the comments for the most part. Sorry for leaving
10 >> > that bit in. And I thought that the Gentoo Foundation had the
11 >> > copyright?
12 >>
13 >> it does. and if it doesnt, punt the file and rewrite it from scratch.
14 >
15 > Well, this should constitute a rewrite from scratch.
16
17 That's good, because IIRC, Ciaranm has stated before that he did /not/
18 sign the copyright hand-over -- it wasn't required by the time he
19 came around, so if I'm not mistaken, particularly since that's what the
20 original claimed, that /would/ be copyright Ciaran. However, a rewrite
21 should take care of it, so as I said, good, if you're planning on
22 reassigning. I'd still consider putting in a "based on ..." crediting
23 him, as only polite, but I don't know that it's necessary.
24
25 --
26 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
27 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
28 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
29
30 --
31 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list