On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:10 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Ok, at this point I'm not going to merge any more patches, as I don'tOn 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 ?
have any confidence in the truth of what you're saying.It's not about confidence, it's about facts.But, I think I get what you're saying when you say you don't have any confidence in what I am saying.I'm definitely not a cat. And, I did some GSoC work but I want to distance myself from the work but still be able to prove that I did the work, just in case someone requires me to.
I'm Kenyan native - quite risky if I go around dumping code as if I was born in San Francisco.
But I will, if someone makes it clear that whatever I want is not possible.
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
