On 3/14/07, Timothy Normand Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We can visit the section ordering issue, if that makes things clearer. However, the issue of just how much of this needs to be in the source and how much needs to be in a "licensing" file has been brought up before. I believe the assertion was that projects before have had problems when the full statement wasn't included in every file, because people don't always read the license file or may assume (for whatever reason) that it doesn't apply to THIS file. The common scenario was that someone didn't know that the rules were different from what they believed, they committed code, and then got upset later when they saw their code being used in a way that they didn't approve of.
But on the other hand, if contributors are required to sign and _explicitly_ acknowledge that they've read the agreement when sending their patches, then by the time they have commit access, they should already be aware of the policy, having submitted patches before then. The onus is on us to make sure that contributors acknowledge the policy, no matter where it is located, so it doesn't add anything to put the policy in every file, if contributions are handled properly. My apologies if this was beaten to death earlier on the list.
I am undecided on this. I don't mind people getting credit for their specific contributions. But if that's not helpful, we shouldn't do it. The community should come to a decision, and we'll stick by it.
People can still get credit for specific contributions, and I agree that they should, but they can get it without putting their names in the specific files they contributed to, and there's a record of every contribution in the svn repository. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
