Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> 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?
currently, the names appearing in the files list (more or less) the major
contributors to the file. However, some names listed in the files are
from people who no longer contribute to the project, so it won't be
usefull to "annoy" them
so, there are two different concepts that need to be addressed:
- copyright holders on the file. normally, those should be the list
of people who did make a patch to that file. but that's a rather
fuzzy definition: what about if a file is split (at one day or the
other) in two files => will a contributor to first file have
copyrights on the two new files (even if his contribution only
applied to what became, let's say, the first file) ?
- maintainer, contact person for the function => given the current
number of wine's contributor it might be difficult to "assign" maintainers
to a file (or even a module or DLL)
so, we could either :
- remove all of the names from the files (there's no real need from a project
development point of view)
- or list the "major contributors" (to tackle the developer's susceptibility
issue), but it'll be hard to define clearly what a "major contributor" is
(even a one line fix can be a major contribution)
A+
--
---------------
Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/)
"The future will be better tomorrow", Vice President Dan Quayle
