Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
Regarding the NOTICE file, I don't think we want the "originally
developed" stuff in there. That was the whole point of the IP
clearance, so that this can be claimed to be Apache software. To
acknowledge Deiter, we should use one of the other approaches that I
mentioned in my other email message.
In other projects we also have this "originally developed" signature
in the NOTICE files for code we imported into the respective project.
Of course the official part is done by the IP clearance, but I think
we should still state that the original code came from the outside.
I disagree here, because it potentially gives reason for concern about
who actually "owns" the code. Since Dieter contributed the code to
Apache, it is now Apache code so it should be listed as such. The NOTICE
file, in my view, is not the place to try to give credit to contributors
since there are lot of potential contributors to all code contained in a
release. We have certainly not done this in any other NOTICE file.
Perhaps we can get some more opinions.
I disagree, too ;-)
The NOTICE file is exactly the place to record such code origins. We do
this for various reasons currently, e.g. when we include OSGi API
packages or KXml2 classes.
To also record the original authorship of the code is just another such
reference case. But I see your point about confusion (I don't think it
is a big issue, though). So what do you think of the following extension:
Contains code originally developed and contributed to the
Apache Felix project by Dieter Wimberger
Regards
Felix