On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Hi Jon,
I am referring to otherwise honest people who choose to contribute
their enhancements back to the project. They create new classes but in
the process remove the names of previous authors. They do this in
good-faith as otherwise they would
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
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
Hi Jon,
I am referring to otherwise honest people who choose to contribute their enhancements
back to the project. They create new classes but in the process remove the names of
previous authors. They do this in good-faith as otherwise they would not have
contributed their code. I think it
I know the feeling... I don't think there is too much to do about
it - the licence allows that, as long as they keep the Apache
copyright.
Costin
--- Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jon,
I am referring to otherwise honest people who choose to contribute
their enhancements back to
If these people have comitter status, they could loose it
quickly. Why didn't they just append their name...
-
Henri Gomez ___[_]
EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .)
PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39
on 6/7/01 12:18 PM, Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jon,
I am referring to otherwise honest people who choose to contribute their
enhancements back to the project. They create new classes but in the process
remove the names of previous authors. They do this in good-faith as
Jon Stevens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 6/7/01 11:42 AM, Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This comes up from time to time and usually has me jump through the roof.
Good
willing contributors, take a piece of existing log4j code, modify or enhance
it, but remove the previous author's
