Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, gentoo-dev-announce@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:45:27
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy by NP-Hardass
W dniu pon, 11.06.2018 o godzinie 12∶25 -0400, użytkownik NP-Hardass
> On 06/10/2018 04:34 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > [...] > > > Copyright Attribution > > --------------------- > > > > All files included in Gentoo projects must contain an appropriate > > copyright notice, as defined by this policy. > > > > A proper copyright notice appears near the top of the file, and reads:: > > > > Copyright YEARS LARGEST-CONTRIBUTOR [OTHER-CONTRIBUTORS] and others > > > > The largest contributor is whatever entity owns copyright to some > > portion of the largest number of lines in the file. Additional > > contributors can be listed, but this is neither required nor > > recommended. The "and others" text may be omitted if the explicitly > > listed contributors hold copyright to the entire file. > > Why is this not recommended? Here are a couple of scenarios that came to > mind that lead to me to question how that would play out: > If developer A writes 51% of the lines of an ebuild and developer B > writes 49%, should B not be listed? > What if all the metadata lines defining variables consists of 75% of the > file and was written by A, but the core functionality of the ebuild (25% > by size) was written by B? > If A writes an ebuild, and B replaces a majority (>50%) of the ebuild, > should B remove A from attribution? > I think that specifying that substantial (though not necessarily > specific in defining this) contributions/contributors should included in > the copyright attribution and that substantial contribution attribution > *is* recommended. >
Note that line attribution is not a very precise measure anyway. For example, you can easily update all lines in the ebuild without making any substantial change to it. Therefore, according to 'git blame' you'd be 100% owner but at the same time the previous author would have far more original contribution than you did. -- Best regards, Michał Górny