Hi Trev, Thanks for your input. I've update the subject to split the discussion into technical & licensing issue.
2011/5/7 Jaluino <[email protected]> > It is certainly not legal to attribute authorship to someone who is not the > author without assigning the copyright and the assignee accepting the > assignment. In this context, if person X creates a file, then person X is > the author of that file, not person Y unless you assign copyright to person > Y and person Y accepts that assignment. > OK, sure, that's what William wants about MSSP2 lib, and this is what I'll do. I didn't feel confortable (and actually didn't even consider this option) about putting my name as author when I just did nothing other than adding "2" at proper place in registers. That's why I did that, I obviously didn't want to offense nobody, nor the license. This is fixed as of revision 2639. > > Additionally, you cannot ignore the licence and what it actually grants > you. In the case of the zlib licence, any changes to the source which are > not accepted by the author are really derivative works and must not be > represented as being the original software or authored by the original > author. > OK. As I said, this situation has never occured before. I already changed libs without asking to author, for the reason I previously exposed (didn't want to take credits). Honestly this has never cause troubles, usually people feel ok to let their work modified without special notification. This brings to a very important point in the context of jallib as a community project. Because this means that each time someone wants to modify a file, we'd need to first ask the author if he's ok, this would be very time consuming, some author may not even available anymore. this also means that, in extent, only author is allowed to modify its own file. This is not what I have in mind when dealing with a community project. Every committer should be able to improve and add benefits to any libraries. In order to make this possible, when not the author, maybe the "modifier" should automatically put a "derivative work" notice within the file, takes authorship, and replace the originial work with the derivative one. Does it make sense ? > > The confusion seems to have arisen by wanting "to do the right thing" - > that is, acknowledging the original author's work without which the > derivative work would not have come into being. The only problem is that has > not been done in accordance with the licence or in consultation with the > author. > > Have I clarified the issue? I hope so. As for me, yes, thanks. Cheers, Seb > There really is no argument, just a simple misunderstanding. > > Cheers, > TREV. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
