Aye - I suspected this would raise eyebrows so I did bring it up a few times [1][2]. I'm sure we're in agreement that attribution is important in the Open Source world so I'd like to be sure it's done appropriately. I'm happy to fix.
Currently, though, I'm not sure how best to handle this veto... what would be the preferred path forward? As a first step, I've remove the three lines mentioned here and added to CHANGES in r1776674. The 2.4 backport has also been modified (simply by removing the lines since CHANGES already has attribution to the original authors which seems to be preferred per your message). Does that work or did you have another approach in mind? [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/95173df808992097f565bc7bcd06a01b2129415bff0aae6c608b82fe@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/28e660f38d945216d9d0bb4cba3e1b4336a4c5051a46f17c8f99a0f0@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E -- Daniel Ruggeri On 12/30/2016 8:00 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > -1 (yes, veto.) > > In general, as the original author of this particular module, you > might notice I don't claim attribution. We rely on svn provenance and > Changes to describe code legacy, so these make me very uncomfortable, > especially when injected into our sources. That isn't the key issue. > > The statement itself may be presently true. The statement a number of > years from now might be radically false. The presence of this > statement makes it impossible for the future svn hacker to know when > to modify the statement or determine when the sources have changed > such that it becomes untrue. > > It is a relativistic value judgement, and these aren't useful as > legalistic elements, so the conventional 'portions copyright...' sort > of language is used instead.
