| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 12:57 PM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Revised suggestion taking into account your concern as well as the |
| 4 |
> separate thread that contributors without @gentoo.org addresses should |
| 5 |
> be recognized: |
| 6 |
> === |
| 7 |
> key: |
| 8 |
> name of contributor and/or their associated unique email address |
| 9 |
> (emails should not be duplicated in the keys) |
| 10 |
> value: |
| 11 |
> a list of entities who may own the copyright to parts of commits |
| 12 |
> the developer has made |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I still don't like the idea of making this association, because |
| 15 |
somebody might want to commit some entity's code without being |
| 16 |
memorialized as the person who did a commit for associated with some |
| 17 |
organization that they might have serious ethical concerns with. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For example, I might borrow code from a company that manufactures |
| 20 |
cigarettes, weapons, is political in nature, or which otherwise is |
| 21 |
controversial. I have no association with the organization. The code |
| 22 |
just happens to have been written by them, and for some reason I need |
| 23 |
to use it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So, if this change is made, developers are now stuck with having to |
| 26 |
choose between having their name go into this file next to the |
| 27 |
organization they want no association with, or not using the code |
| 28 |
(which might benefit users in some way - eg security patches/etc). |
| 29 |
There is no organizational need to make these associations, so why do |
| 30 |
it? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
However, your change does address my concern with not having some way |
| 33 |
to include organizations in the AUTHORS file when they do not employ |
| 34 |
the Gentoo developer making the commit. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
In the case of developers who wish to list their own names in the |
| 37 |
file, presumably they can just list their name as both the key and |
| 38 |
value. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Rich |
Archives