| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:40:01PM -0500, Sarah White wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/23/18 3:25 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 2018-11-23 3:23 p.m., Sarah White wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> Either way: multiline copyright notices are legally valid, |
| 7 |
> >> or is that meant to be disputed? I'm not clear on the |
| 8 |
> >> intent for this comment: |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> ["...don't have to be listed in a notice"] |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > legal validity != legal requirement |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Sure. You're not wrong. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> You've left out the other section which starts: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> ["The interest in removing or discouraging..."] |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> What's the purpose of removing or discouraging |
| 24 |
> something which doesn't harm gentoo, but rather, |
| 25 |
> helps get more support from: ["contributors who |
| 26 |
> are in a situation where a contract may require a |
| 27 |
> copyright notice for anything done on-the-clock"] |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> ... and/or other harmless reasons. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> The intent / reasoning for removal or prohibition |
| 32 |
> of a multiline copyright notice has tenuous footing, |
| 33 |
> and worries me that nobody in this thread has made |
| 34 |
> a stronger argument than: ["we're not required by any |
| 35 |
> law to allow a different copyright notice, so we'll |
| 36 |
> require it to be a gentoo authors copyright notice."] |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
This is what concerns me as well. All of the folks in this thread who |
| 39 |
want to forbid multiline copyright notices have yet to convince me that |
| 40 |
there is a technical argument for doing so. If there is one, I'm willing |
| 41 |
to be convinced, but that's not what I'm hearing. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
For example, If there are really performance reasons, let's see the benchmarks |
| 44 |
proving it. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
William |
Archives