On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> wrote: > 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?
Hi Daniel, not to pull you in too many directions, but I would suggest to revert r1776674 and go back to erring on the side of attribution until we can arrive at a consensus. The license requires that copyright notices are preserved in derivative works.
