Roland Weber wrote:

I don't see that either. But if some of the top Apache guys
feel, believe or know otherwise, that's good enough for me.

Know what? This has become a recreation of illusions and delusions. This is like Franz Kafka's book The Trial. There are vague and unsubstantiated reasons for changing the entire attribution structure of the open source community. This is not good thinking.


If the only purpose of the tags is to feature contributor names
in a prominent place - namely the source code - then the
real question becomes whether we can achieve this goal
in some other way with reasonable effort.

This is NOT the only goal. That is not even close to accurate.




Concerning the CVS log, you have to be aware that the
committer is not always the contributor. A contributor
may put a patch in bugzilla, which is then comitted by
someone else.

Well, in the paranoid sort of talk we are having, then the "committer" becomes subject to these imagined but unreal legal assaults. Indeed, where an "author" is hidden, the Foundation would become liable for a "conspiracy" of hiding the real culprits. This is all silly from a legal standpoint.



In general, I don't believe that the removal of author tags
is to disguise from where the code came. Rather, some
people may be afraid to find their name in the author tag
of code which has no longer anything to do with what
they actually contributed long ago.

This is yet another reason? This is also not right. The @author tags keep track of rather than obscure people's relation to existing code. The destruction of this useful device will create rather than solve anything akin to this imagined problem.


Then it would become
their problem to dig through the CVS logs, bugzilla, and
the mailing list archives to prove that they are *not* the
author.

To whom? This is just imaginary. This is Alice in Wonderland thinking.


Love yah, Roland, but this is not your shining hour. Really, there is no legal difficulty, but this recommendation might create one. Microsoft could not have come up with a better way to screw up the code.

Reply via email to