On 4/2/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/2/06, Sandy McArthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > For me that falls apart in two places: > > 1. authorship != ownership, this is made clear by the file's header. > > 2. subversion contains enough information to target critical > > contributors. In my mind that is like worrying about a second story > > window that may be unlocked when your front door is off the hinges. > > > Subversion does indeed contain plenty of information. However, lawyers don't > understand source control systems, but they do understand plain text. A > technical perspective isn't what's important here; what lawyers understand, > and what is supported by legal precedent, is. That's where the board is > coming from, backed by legal advice.
There's also a difference between push and pull, I believe. We are publishing/distributing the author names in the javadoc/source - we don't publish the subversion data. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
