On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> I am referring to otherwise honest people who choose to contribute
> their enhancements back to the project. They create new classes but in
> the process remove the names of previous authors. They do this in
> good-faith as otherwise they would not have contributed their code. I
> think it is a question of culture/custom.
>
It could be as innocent as someone not understanding that multiple @author
tags are legal.
But you don't know until you ask to the individuals involved why this
happened, and encourage them to behave differently.
> I do not think we have a document outlining authorship rules. Does
> anyone know one? Regards, Ceki
>
I think this is really a significant question. How significant a patch
does it take for someone to legitimately be considered an additional
"author" of a particular source file? Attribution in a CVS commit should
always be there -- but is that really enough.
Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to come up with ideas for a
document describing reasonable policies for making such a decision -- but
it would be useful to have such a thing (i.e. I vote +0 :-).
Craig
> At 11:51 07.06.2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >on 6/7/01 11:42 AM, "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> This comes up from time to time and usually has me jump through the roof. Good
> >> willing contributors, take a piece of existing log4j code, modify or enhance
> >> it, but remove the previous author's names. They then post their code as if
> >> it was their own. Regardless of how much they modified the code, by removing
> >> the previous author's names they are committing theft. I find this very
> >> disturbing. What do others think? What can we do to combat this phenomenon?
> >> Regards, Ceki
> >
> >There is a difference between doing this accidentally and doing it on
> >purpose. If it is determined that it is done on purpose and the people who
> >did it refuse to follow the license, then the Jakarta PMC should be notified
> >and we can sick the ASF Legal team on the problem. Note, this seems like it
> >would be a last resort type of situation. The best is to try to at least
> >discuss with the villains (jokingly said) first and make sure that it was
> >not intentional.
> >
> >-jon
> >
> >--
> >"Open source is not available to commercial companies."
> > -Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
> ><http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> Ceki Gülcü
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
