Hello Michael, > I commit it, and wow - we really have a joint ownership ! you are > right :-) it actually fulfills the definition of 'joint'-ness briefly. > by revision 1.3 - 'rt' is changing the license - at least this is > probably only removing headers: so, perhaps I still own it. > but by revision 1.5 my friend Frank commits some warning removal > changes [ thanks :-) ]: and bingo - the only owner of that entire module > is Sun. > ... > The situation is worse if any two non-Sun people collaborate, say - > Caolan fixes a bug in my brand-new code: despite Sun having never > touched it, it becomes the only owner of the complete work :-) > > So, again - I assert that the only real owner of the code is Sun - and > in the tiny fraction of cases where that is briefly not so, it only > needs to touch the module, run indent on it, fix a warning or whatever > and it is so.
What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of course you continue to be the owner of the code you contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he contributed (so both your examples are wrong), and minor changes not relevant to functionality don't change the ownership (so your last claim is wrong, too). In particular with the last item, I am uncertain whether lawyer's sense is the same as common sense here, of course. Which is the reason why I can't and won't continue discussing this - IANAL. However, I somehow have the feeling if we really need to pick nits at this level, then we have other problems. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
