1 |
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:03 PM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> This idea to me is just asking for trouble, given the aformentioned |
4 |
> factors. |
5 |
> |
6 |
|
7 |
What kind of, "trouble?" |
8 |
|
9 |
> Reliably handling contribution factors however seems difficult, given |
10 |
> the stock output given by "git blame" is routinely wrong due to how or |
11 |
> workflow operates. |
12 |
|
13 |
Why does this have to be reliable? |
14 |
|
15 |
> So given that, as it stands, automating this is either: |
16 |
> |
17 |
> a) hard |
18 |
> b) impossible |
19 |
> |
20 |
> And subsequently, manually doing it will tend towards those entries |
21 |
> quickly becoming wrong. |
22 |
|
23 |
How is that a problem? Also, this assumes that the main copyright |
24 |
holder on something we distribute actually changes often. |
25 |
|
26 |
There really isn't any negative consequence to the person listed on a |
27 |
copyright notice being "wrong" as far as I can tell. I use quotes |
28 |
because as long as the person listed contributed SOMETHING to the file |
29 |
the statement is still accurate, even if non-ideal. I doubt a court |
30 |
is going to decide a case differently because the person listed on the |
31 |
copyright notice wrote 20% of a file vs somebody else who wrote 40%. |
32 |
As far as I'm aware the name listed on a copyright notice isn't |
33 |
binding at all on a court - the court is free to determine who |
34 |
actually owns the copyright based on the facts of the situation. The |
35 |
notice simply serves to inform the recipient of a work that it IS |
36 |
copyrighted, so that they can't claim innocent infringement. The work |
37 |
remains copyrighted all the same if the notice is not present, and |
38 |
future infringement after receiving notice would not be innocent |
39 |
regardless. |
40 |
|
41 |
> And to add insult to injury, changing these entries via either |
42 |
> mechanism produces source of commit churn and conflicts |
43 |
|
44 |
Only if you try to constantly adjust things. |
45 |
|
46 |
If you just wait until somebody points out an inaccuracy (which is all |
47 |
the policy requires), then these commits will be rare. |
48 |
|
49 |
> And around about here you ask "what's the point?". A lot of work, for |
50 |
> negligible benefit. |
51 |
|
52 |
The policy doesn't require much work. The parts that suggested that |
53 |
it needed to be maintained in realtime were removed, for exactly the |
54 |
reasons you have elaborated on. |
55 |
|
56 |
The intent here is not to have devs constantly checking the copyright |
57 |
notices on every commit. It simply states what they are intended to |
58 |
contain. |
59 |
|
60 |
> |
61 |
> The nature of the proposed changes seems strongly in conflict with the |
62 |
> technology we have to use, and will produce no benefit, at the expense |
63 |
> of real problems. |
64 |
> |
65 |
|
66 |
Well, one of the main benefits is that people won't feel like they |
67 |
have to replace all the copyright notices with ones that reference |
68 |
Gentoo when they put these files on Gentoo infra (such as what |
69 |
happened with eudev). |
70 |
|
71 |
As far as real problems go, just don't touch the copyright lines |
72 |
except to add "and others" and there won't be many issues. |
73 |
|
74 |
If somebody makes a huge rewrite they can always add themselves to the |
75 |
notice as the main contributor if they wish. |
76 |
|
77 |
I definitely don't think automating the notices is a good idea. For |
78 |
example, in the eudev repository the file src/scsi_id/scsi_id.c has |
79 |
IBM/SUSE copyright notices on it, and that isn't what your git log |
80 |
command would output. That was just the first random file in that |
81 |
repository I checked. |
82 |
|
83 |
Overall the intent of the policy (after the various rewrites) was to |
84 |
try to give reasonable instructions as to how the notice should be |
85 |
written, but not to suggest that developers need to put a great deal |
86 |
of effort into making it precise. |
87 |
|
88 |
-- |
89 |
Rich |