On Saturday 12 December 2009, Graham Percival wrote: > I'm starting to prepare the glasgow-pitchtracker-2009 branch for merging, > so I'm modifying all the new source files to match the existing format and > style.
When are you planning to merge? If you intend to do this soon, I need to scramble to figure out a plan for how I'm going to juggle all the changes we can't release until after February. > Most of this is obvious, but I'm wondering what to do about the copyright > notices. Should I change them all to say "Copyright 2000-2009 the > Rosegarden development team" and send a patch for > http://rosegardenmusic.com/resources/authors/ (which is what the AUTHORS > file says to look at) ? Or should I leave the copyright notices as being > owned by the various people at the Center for Music Technology ? > (listing their specific names, not CMT) Using the same boilerplate copyright notice everywhere is the most convenient approach, if that is acceptable to your guys. We have some files that have an additional "This file copyright [blah]" under the boilerplate, and for the bits where [blah] was me or someone I knew well, I changed that to \author notes in the Doxygen comments in the class headers instead. I can't dictate terms on how to reassign copyright, but if I get to pick, I'd vote for something like: \author Douglas McGilvray, Centre for Music Technology, blah Add as many as you deem appropriate. Either way, yes, add them to the authors page. The source is in a module in SVN called "website," or you can just send a patch and I'll deal with it. -- D. Michael McIntyre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
