I almost forgot. A corollary of the 10+ lines authorship rule is that if you
copy-and-paste over ten lines of code then you should grant the author of the 10+
lines authorship status on your code that imports the 10+ lines.
If the copy-and-pasted code has a different license/copyright then you must also ask
for permission. Ceki
At 11:00 08.06.2001 +0200, you wrote:
>At 01:24 08.06.2001 -0700, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
>>I think this is really a significant question. How significant a patch
>>does it take for someone to legitimately be considered an additional
>>"author" of a particular source file? Attribution in a CVS commit should
>>always be there -- but is that really enough.
>>
>>Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to come up with ideas for a
>>document describing reasonable policies for making such a decision -- but
>>it would be useful to have such a thing (i.e. I vote +0 :-).
>
>The rule I use is to be liberal when granting authorship but extremely conservative
>in removing authorship.
>
>Ten lines of new code turns a contributor to an author for the relevant file. In some
>rather rare cases, small (< 5 lines) but insightful changes can have a big impact.
>Consequently they merit authorship and even committer status.
>
>In principle, authorship can never be removed regardless of how much one changes the
>original code. After 65 iterations it might well be the case that not one single
>lines survives from the original code. That still does not justify the removal of the
>original author's name.
>
>On the other hand, authorship is not viral. If someone creates a new class extending
>a class that I wrote, that does not make me an author of the extending class.
>
>I religiously follow these rules and expect everyone else in the log4j community to
>do the same. Regards, Ceki
--
Ceki G�lc�
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
