On 07.10.2019 20:29, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> I do not have a strong opinion either way, but I find the argument not
> convincing.
> I strongly believe that a part of the source/component has probably been
> written and is maintained by a very limited number of people. Occasionally
>
Hi Christian,
> Are you aware that for Taler and GNUnet we have a copyright assignment
> to GNUnet e.V. and that the GNUnet e.V. (or Taler Systems SA) is listed
> as the copyright holder in each file, and that those should/would be the
> ones enforcing the (A)GPL anyway?
That should be
I do not have a strong opinion either way, but I find the argument not
convincing.
I strongly believe that a part of the source/component has probably been
written and is maintained by a very limited number of people. Occasionally
somebody might "adopt" this but at that point this person quite
Hi Christian,
> we would still have
> both the top-level AUTHORS file and the attribution via the Git history.
>
> So, please do let me know if you (for whatever reason) would object to
> removing the per-source file @author attributions.
Mails sent to gnu-community-private on 2019-09-25 14:10
Hi Bruno,
Are you aware that for Taler and GNUnet we have a copyright assignment
to GNUnet e.V. and that the GNUnet e.V. (or Taler Systems SA) is listed
as the copyright holder in each file, and that those should/would be the
ones enforcing the (A)GPL anyway?
However, your point is slightly more
Hi all,
Sorry for cross-posting, but 'someone' just triggered me and this
applies to multiple packages, at least in theory:
On 10/7/19 7:33 PM, someone wrote (privately):
> Trying to define authors of individual source files (as opposed to
> individual commits) seems hopelessly subjective as
