On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:36:35PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:38:59AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > >>> > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:51:01 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > >>> > > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:14:29AM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > This is okay but this definitely wrong. And it does indeed sound > >>> wrong. And > >>> > > > it will always sound wrong. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Being involved in a GSoC project is not about contributions. And > >>> also > >>> > > > considering the scale of our project(some of the code even never > >>> got > >>> > > > merged). There was a lot of research, design, planning, > >>> implementation, > >>> > > > review and finally the code got merged. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I should at least be able to copyright the file. I mean, Jim was > >>> my mentor, > >>> > > > I did most of the work but his company copyright is right at the > >>> top of the > >>> > > > file - Does this sound okay to you ? > >>> > > > >>> > > You own copyright on any contributions you make, regardless of what > >>> any > >>> > > Copyright statement at the top of the file says. Just like the Author > >>> > > lines in file headers, these Copyright lines in source files are at > >>> best > >>> > > outdated and incomplete. Anyone who wishes to identify the copyright > >>> > > ownership has no choice but to look at the git history which records > >>> > > exactly who wrote what. > >>> > > >>> > Soo, can we also delete the "Copyright ..." lines from the top of the > >>> > license statement? That's a cleanup which I'll gladly do. > >>> > >>> No, you can not delete other people's Copyright lines - they are > >>> considered > >>> part of the license notice so can only be altered by the copyright > >>> holder. > >>> > >> > >> Suse copyright notice has been on this file since the day this file got > >> merged. To be honest, I did most of the original work so why should Suse > >> copyright appear here while me doesn't ? > >> > > > > Contrary to the fact that most libvirt developers work for a company, this > > was mostly independent work. > > > > And I totally don't have a problem with Suse copyrighting the file but why > can't I do the same ? You can have Copyright line on any file you made non-trivial contributions too. It is upto the person contributing patches to add Copyright line if they wish to. The Suse copyright is there simply because their patch author chose to add it when they contributed to that file. > Or, would you rather I use the pseudonym 'Oneko Ltd' instead of just > 'Oneko' ? Copyright lines need to use legal real names, or company name, not pseudonyms. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
