Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Changelog:
> > Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (for Corel)
>
> I'm sure there must be other people than me wondering... which Alexandre
> is this who needs to have his patch submitted to Wine by someone else?
It is the Alexandre-working-on-behalf-of-Corel, not the
Alexandre-hacking-Wine-on-his-own-time; they are quite different
animals.
The work I do for Corel is owned by them, and they can do what they
want with it; it may or may not end up in their CVS tree, and as long
as it isn't released to the public I don't have any right to put it in
the WineHQ tree. Once it shows up in the Corel tree I could of course
merge it into WineHQ myself, but if other people do the work for me
I'm not going to complain...
Even though Corel are very cool about this, and of course intend to
release all the Wine code back to the community anyway, I think it is
important to make a clear distinction, to ensure that I don't take
credit for changes paid for by Corel (or that they take credit for
changes I do on my own...) This is also why I have adopted the
convention of putting my CodeWeavers email in the log entry of all the
patches I did on behalf of Corel.
> (And how is the license change going anyway, Alexandre?)
Pretty good, I have received an OK from about 75 people, and more are
still arriving. Since I haven't received any opposition so far I think
it is safe to say that we will be able to do the change pretty soon.
Maybe now is a good time to discuss the implementation issues:
I suggest that we put the full text of the license (since it is short
enough) at the top of every source file. I'd also like to hear
opinions about the copyright notices; the ones we have now are useful
in finding the person to annoy with questions about a given file, but
they are not strictly correct WRT the copyright law, since they don't
list all copyright holders. Suggestions?
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
