On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 08:33:09PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote: > Actually, what is more confusing in my eyes is the Apache copyright stanza. > > The file itself is copyrighted by as many people who have contributed code > to that file. So normally we'd have to have a whole list of Copyrights at > the head of each file. > > The only instance in that list which doesn't "own" (at least according to > European law) any Copyright is the ASF. Because by signing the CLA we > didn't "give away" our copyrights to the ASF but more or less "licensed" > our stuff to them. So the ASF has "a right to copy" but no "copyright" :) > Cf. the CLA point 2.
IANAL. I would have thought that the ASF lawyers wrote that to give the ASF the right to do mark stuff as Copyrighted by the ASF. Essentially, I think here we should do what other ASF projects do. > I'd personally like to keep a list of major contributors (if they want) in > the files because that gives some acknowledgement to their work. I think > both Liam and Brad are listed there because they more or less directly > requested it. I added Sidney because he did some great work with his > Windows adaption. And call it a big ego, but I myself like to see my name > on files on which invested quite some time :) I've got no problems with listing contributors in the file, but I don't think we should say Copyright [yr] [contributor]. Perhaps something like this would be better: Important Contributors: - Somebody, Something they did - Number 2, what they did ... Having said this, it is inevitable that we leave people out. Perhaps we should simply leave a big list of contributors and their contributions in the tree somewhere, rather than in individual files. (We pretty much have this list in the form of the ASF CLA stuff.) This way, it's more centralised, and more likely to be accurate and up to date. -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
