On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:05:54PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:47:26PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 outdated and incomplete.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. > > > > > > In which case you mean that if I write a patch copyrighting these file on > > > the company name 'Oneko and sons' you will merge that patch ? > > > > Depends on whether that company owns the copyright or not. Copyright is > > owned by the individual who creates the work, unless a contract of > > employment requires them to assign copyright to the company instead. > > So unless you did your GSoC work under such a contract with that > > company, it would be inappropriate to list them. > > > But, the individual who created the work was a cat. > > Okay, I could copyright this on my name and cat email - does that sound > okay ? Ok, at this point I'm not going to merge any more patches, as I don't have any confidence in the truth of what you're saying. 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
