Simply address the issue that caused the -1... 'Code mostly copyright...' needs to be 'Portions copyright'... A statement which is unlikely to become entirely false.
On Dec 30, 2016 18:28, "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? > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/95173df808992097f565bc7bcd06a0 > 1b2129415bff0aae6c608b82fe@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E > [2] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/28e660f38d945216d9d0bb4cba3e1b > 4336a4c5051a46f17c8f99a0f0@%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. > >
