Hi folks, let me add a few lines to the discussion...
Dan Christopherson wrote: > I think that "owner" is intended in the sense of "the primary person > responsible for maintaining", not in the sense of the legel owner. Yes, that was - and is - exactly my understanding of the term "code owner". However, the discussion that ensued highlights the only point I really wanted to make with my posting: The recommendation found by Chris Lampert contradicts itself when applied in the context of the HttpClient. Jeff, and others, my apologies for not making clear in my posting that I was referring to the "code owner", not the "owner" in a legal sense. Unfortunately, my mailer does not reasonably support inline quoting, so the context of my statement may have been lost. Michael McGrady wrote: > Bravo, "author" of code and especially code parts does not mean "owner" in > any sense. "Author" means author, which is accurate. The recommendation quoted by Chris Lampert is: >> "One of the most important pieces of information that should appear in the >> source file is the author's name -- not necessarily who edited the file >> last, but the owner. Attaching responsibility and accountability to source >> code does wonders in keeping people honest ..." So it recommends that the author tags be used to indicate code ownership. I take it your Bravo was meant for the author of the book _The Pragmatic Programmer_. Michael McGrady also wrote: > On the first issue, I am a lawyer and I can assure you that this worry is, > frankly, silly. Right now, there is a company with three capital letters on the loose, which is suing other companies (including another one with three capital letters) for reasons that most of the open source community considers to be silly. But it may be an expensive and lengthy enterprise to prove in court that a silly thing is a silly thing. If removing author tags may reduce the risk of being sued, then rip them out. As a replacement: what about a list that indicates how many classes and/or methods a contributor has contributed to? I'd keep it in alphabetical or random order rather than as a ranking, to make it more of a collaboration and less of a competition. And finally, since this discussion tangles legal matters, let me add that the views expressed in this, previous, and following postings are strictly my own and not those of my employer, which happens to have three capital letters. cheers, Roland
