1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2019, Robin H Johnson wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> The simplified form of the copyright attribution according to |
4 |
>> GLEP 76 [2], i.e., "Copyright YEARS Gentoo Authors", SHALL [3] |
5 |
>> be used for ebuilds and profile files in the Gentoo repository. |
6 |
|
7 |
> For the record, can you clarify what attribution should be used for |
8 |
> the following files in the Gentoo repository? |
9 |
> - eclasses |
10 |
> - init files & other scripts |
11 |
|
12 |
The rationale for omitting them from the policy was already discussed |
13 |
in the 20181014 council meeting [1]. In a nutshell, many eclasses have |
14 |
explicit author lists even now, and there is less copying of code |
15 |
between eclasses (or between scripts). So tracking of the main |
16 |
contributor isn't as problematic as it is for ebuilds. |
17 |
|
18 |
Still, using "Gentoo Authors" for these files as well is perfectly fine |
19 |
and should be the default. |
20 |
|
21 |
> - patches (written by a Gentoo developer vs external contributor) |
22 |
|
23 |
Any attribution mentioned in GLEP 76 is fine, i.e., no special policy |
24 |
for patches. |
25 |
|
26 |
> As a specific case, if a new package is submitted with an openrc init |
27 |
> script written by the contributor, and they have their name in it; |
28 |
> should that remain intact (and what should be done later when modifying |
29 |
> that file). |
30 |
|
31 |
Keep the copyright line intact, and add "and others" when the file is |
32 |
significantly modified. |
33 |
|
34 |
(Still I think that the simplified attribution should be preferred, |
35 |
especially for small files like init scripts which are barely |
36 |
copyrightable.) |
37 |
|
38 |
Ulrich |
39 |
|
40 |
[1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20181014.txt (at 20:14) |