1 |
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:14 PM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Surely then, the most effective and usefully correct copyright notice |
4 |
> (for portage trees at least), would be: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> "Copyright Gentoo Foundation and Contributors" |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Or similar, instead of abandoning the Gentoo Foundation Copyright and using |
9 |
> a random persons name? |
10 |
|
11 |
Sure, and that is what the policy proposes (except "and others" |
12 |
instead of "and Contributors"), at least for existing stuff that has |
13 |
the Foundation headers. For new stuff it would be the name of the |
14 |
main copyright holder. |
15 |
|
16 |
> If the objective is to simply denote the file has a copyright, that |
17 |
> format should do the job. |
18 |
|
19 |
Sure. It just isn't appropriate for things that the Foundation |
20 |
doesn't hold copyright on, and it caused quite a stir when a large |
21 |
number of notices were stripped from files and replaced with the |
22 |
Foundation, hence the policy. |
23 |
|
24 |
> ( Additionally, I have no opposition to generating a package-wide |
25 |
> file that notates contributors, such an approach is routinely |
26 |
> satisfactory for debian with regards to marking up which files have |
27 |
> which licenses without needing to inject the license in the file, and |
28 |
> has the benefit of exposing that metadata to consumers who only access |
29 |
> via rsync or tarballs, its just in-band in-git data that I find most |
30 |
> obnoxious due to being functionally redundant ) |
31 |
|
32 |
The original policy suggested something like this. IMO git is a lot |
33 |
simpler. I don't see the point in duplicating git info just for the |
34 |
benefit of people who can't be bothered to look at it. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Rich |