On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
But the point is that this code is developed external. This is different because it is our (i.e., Apache) code. >> 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. I agree, the above statement would set a bad precedent and make us end-up with a lot of this kind extensions that are not really needed. The contributor page seems to be the place to note this kind of things to me. regards, Karl > -> richard > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
