Felix Meschberger wrote:
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
Well, I would still not be in favor of this, since it is does not follow
past precedent in Felix. We specifically started a contributor page for
this very reason.
-> richard
