I meant: The file NAME seems copyright, however anyone is free to re-use the same file name as they please.
Matt. On Aug 16, 8:58 am, mattschinkel <[email protected]> wrote: > > In my view, a library published in the SVN 'trunk' is copyrighted by > > the author, and any non-trivial 'refactoring' should be done only with > > the author's cooperation. The author is the copyright holder. In > > short, the SVN 'trunk' is a collection of copyrighted works by various > > authors. > > SVN 'trunk' it's self is not copyright. Old files are still there as > you wish. New files are shown as the latest commit. I don't see an > issue here. The file seems copyright, however anyone is free to re-use > the same file name as they please. > > Anyways, it's not that bad of an idea, but: > 1. By browsing SVN, how will you know what the official files are? > Currently it's easy to see which is the new file. > 2. It will make a mess of SVN. It's quite clean at the moment, > everything there is either released or pending release. > > File name should stay the same in the release. The location of the > file on SVN is not part of the work or code. If you want, old files > could be moved to different folder. > > Of course, you could make a separate folder for each contributor, and > also one folder for the release. Again your faced with #2. As well as > which one gets released? > > Please provide a solution to these 2 problems. > > Matt. > > On Aug 16, 4:20 am, William <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > On Aug 14, 5:24 am, Joep Suijs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So, when are libraries to be changed (opposed to new ones created, > > > like ADC and like PRINT adding to the old FORMAT)? And how can a > > > proper working situation be guaranteed while the refactoring is in > > > progress? And - maybe most important - what if the original author > > > objects? > > > Maybe we should leave the libraries as is when the original author > > > does not agree and create a new library. At some point the (a) > > > benevolent dictator can decide to remove the old lib from the > > > distribution if multiple libraries become a burden. > > > > Joep > > > It seems to me that we should make a distinction between: 1) > > publishing a library in the SVN 'trunk', and 2) a JALLIB 'release' or > > 'distribution' which may be downloaded and used elsewhere by third > > parties. > > > In the rare case where someone wants to refactor an existing library > > in ways that the original author does not agree, the author most > > likely would permit the refactored version co-exist alongside the > > original, so long as the filename/ library name is different/distinct > > in the SVN trunk. > > > Note that a future 'release' or 'distribution' of JALLIB may choose to > > abandon the original library in favor of the new, refactored, library, > > but the filename / library name will be different/distinct from the > > original. And the original will always be available in the SVN trunk, > > forever, under its original name, even if it is dropped from the > > 'release'. In short, even the 'benevolent dictator' must honor the > > copyrighted works in the SVN trunk. > > > In contrast, anyone may download a JALLIB 'release', modify any > > library, using the terms of the ZLIB license, and then republish their > > modified version elsewhere if they wish. > > > William > > -- 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.
