Pete Batard wrote: > > I remain the author of my work with all that it entails including > > full ownership of my work > > Then please define full owership.
--8<-- http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright A copyright is a law that gives the owner of a written document, musical composition, book, picture, or other creative work, the right to decide what other people can do with it. -->8-- ..while other people only have rights, or authority, per some license. >From your email it's clear to me that we agree on how this works! > Especially, can you define what extra this entitles you to, with > regards to reuse of your code under a project that uses the same > license? You wrote "you have no authority whatsoever over what happens in libusbx" and my point was that that's not quite true, as you confirm. I don't expect that libusbx would want me to change the license of my work, but I think it's still valid and important to note that we all own the copyright of our respective work and thus I do have some authority over what happens within libusbx, specifically the right to decide what other people can do with my work. The original license of course always applies, ie. my right is only relevant if someone wants to change the license, but that is still decidedly different from "no authority whatsoever" in my opinion. > > while you are restricted to the authority over my work which you > > are granted by the license terms. > > And this is exactly what I used. Yes, I didn't claim otherwise. Sorry - I should have made it clear that the request I made for the particular case of the commit was unrelated to the problem that I saw with the blanket statement you made. I'm glad that it is cleared up now! > > Who owns the code does matter every now and then; a project comes to > > mind where this week someone wanted to change the license of a few > > files in order to add them to yet another project. > > Not exactly accurate. As long as the derivative project uses the > same license, It didn't, that's why the license of those files needed to change, and why I thought of that situation when reading what you wrote. > The ONLY place where ownership matters is when a derivative project > wants to change the license, Yes, exactly my point. Back to the particular case of this commit: > > I shouldn't be able to claim authorship on code you authored, but > > if the patch is committed as proposed then actually I can. > > And this was exactly my intention. Ok! > I don't really see the need to split it when the addon is minimal. I agree, no need to split. Typing an extra line in the commit message doesn't take too long though, and can be useful, but never mind, I won't request it again now that you clarified how you feel about it. Thanks! > > If you don't care about that then of course I will be happy that you > > assign your copyright to me, and then you can ignore my request, but > > please confirm if that is indeed the case! > > It is, and has always been the case. Awesome. Thanks again for clarifying, and thanks for the undeserved credit! //Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
