On 30 August 2016 at 09:12, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux at armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 05:41:10PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 24 August 2016 at 06:46, Vladimir Zapolskiy
>> <vladimir_zapolskiy at mentor.com> wrote:
>>
>> > MODULE_AUTHOR("Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>");
>> > MODULE_AUTHOR("Andy Yan <andy.yan at rock-chips.com>");
>> > MODULE_AUTHOR("Yakir Yang <ykk at rock-chips.com>");
>> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy at mentor.com>");
>> Don't meant to start a flame-war or alike but to educate myself:
>> Where does one draw the line about adding new author(s) of said
>> module/subsystem ?
>>
>> Afaict this is the most common (?) driver in DRM where the list has
>> grown over time. Should we do the same with others ?
>
> ... and I'm responsible for just over half the commits in the mainline
> kernel and I haven't added myself. I generally only add myself if I'm
> creating new code or been involved in adding new code, I don't add if
> I'm merely modifying existing code unless I've replaced a large
> quantity of the code. I think the question people need to ask is:
>
> "Have I contributed a significant set of changes to be able to claim
> shared authorship of that code?"
>
> You wouldn't claim authorship of a 500 page book if you suggested a
> few edits here and there.
>
> Looking at co-authorship in google, I came across:
>
> http://www.southernfriedscience.com/to-co-author-or-not-to-co-author/
>
> which has an interesting list of points on this subject, although more
> biased to research papers, which is where this problem normally arises.
> That seems to back up my idea of "significant contribution" not just
> a few minor changes.
>
> The question then becomes... what is a significant contribution. :)
>
Roughly my line of thinking as well.
Considering that the driver has been developed independently in one
shape or another for a few years I think it's perfectly reasonable in
this case.
Thanks for the input all !
Emil
