Hi,
I was just looking at these files for some reason and a few things struck me as kind of odd. The header of the THANKS file says:
"This file lists all *external* people that have contributed to this project." (emphasis added)
which sounds kind of odd. For example, it seems all of the core developers and regular contributors are listed here. I don't even think of myself as "external", let alone Nick, Frank and Colomban and many others in the list.
And then in AUTHORS, it lists the core developers, and then under "Regular Contributors" it lists only two people. I'm curious what the criteria for being a "Regular Contributor" is, since I've seen a bunch of regular contributions on the ML and patch tracker, many of which were made by people other than those two people. At first I thought it might be people who have SVN commit access, but then there's the COMMITTERS file, so that's not it I don't think. IMHO, anyone in the THANKS file that has actually authored any code or translations should be listed in AUTHORS.
On a similar topic, I noticed in the source files, on top of the license in the comments, some files list Nick and Enrico as the copyright holders, some also have Frank, others Colomban, and yet others Lex (and maybe others still). It seems as though if you contribute significant portions of code to a file, you should add your own copyright blurb in the comments? Would it not make more sense to have a single copyright holder for all files in the project, be it a person (ie. the current lead/maintainer), or an organization (ie. The Geany Software Foundation :)
Also, if someone contributes a significant amount of code to one or more files, does that mean they hand-over the copyright of that code to one (or maybe all?) of those people listed in the various file headers?
The reason I ask about the copyright thing is that I'm currently working on something that basically adds entirely new files and I wasn't sure if I should add my own copyright blurb in the fileheader or that of someone else. It almost seems like currently the copyright blurbs in the file header comments are more like an "Authorship" or "Attribution" than copyright.
I think it might be useful to put some information about this in the HACKING file so that contributors clearly know whether to put their own copyright in the header, or if not, who's name/info to pass the copyright on to. Also whether they should add their names to the AUTHORS file, or THANKS file, and whether they should update the ChangeLog (if that sticks around) and to update the documentation. It also wouldn't hurt to mention in there that all of the submitted code will become/has to be GPL, just in case that's not clear. We're coders after all, not "law talkin guys".
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Am 23.09.2011 05:33, schrieb Matthew Brush:
On a similar topic, I noticed in the source files, on top of the license in the comments, some files list Nick and Enrico as the copyright holders, some also have Frank, others Colomban, and yet others Lex (and maybe others still). It seems as though if you contribute significant portions of code to a file, you should add your own copyright blurb in the comments? Would it not make more sense to have a single copyright holder for all files in the project, be it a person (ie. the current lead/maintainer), or an organization (ie. The Geany Software Foundation :)
Copyright assignment is seen as a bad thing generally. Why would you want to give up rights on your code?
Also, if someone contributes a significant amount of code to one or more files, does that mean they hand-over the copyright of that code to one (or maybe all?) of those people listed in the various file headers?
The reason I ask about the copyright thing is that I'm currently working on something that basically adds entirely new files and I wasn't sure if I should add my own copyright blurb in the fileheader or that of someone else. It almost seems like currently the copyright blurbs in the file header comments are more like an "Authorship" or "Attribution" than copyright.
You should definitely do that. You own the copyright, and no other author. And code can't have no copyright holder (unless auto generated perhaps). And you should defintely add yourself for significant changes.
I think it might be useful to put some information about this in the HACKING file so that contributors clearly know whether to put their own copyright in the header, or if not, who's name/info to pass the copyright on to. Also whether they should add their names to the AUTHORS file, or THANKS file, and whether they should update the ChangeLog (if that sticks around) and to update the documentation. It also wouldn't hurt to mention in there that all of the submitted code will become/has to be GPL, just in case that's not clear. We're coders after all, not "law talkin guys".
It's implicitely GPL if you're editing GPL code. That's a) due to copyleft and b) patches generally don't relicense.
For new files it's actually up to you. You can submit it under GPL, or some other license. It's up to the committer to accept the license (or to relicense before submitting).
Best regards.
On 09/23/2011 10:46 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 23.09.2011 05:33, schrieb Matthew Brush:
On a similar topic, I noticed in the source files, on top of the license in the comments, some files list Nick and Enrico as the copyright holders, some also have Frank, others Colomban, and yet others Lex (and maybe others still). It seems as though if you contribute significant portions of code to a file, you should add your own copyright blurb in the comments? Would it not make more sense to have a single copyright holder for all files in the project, be it a person (ie. the current lead/maintainer), or an organization (ie. The Geany Software Foundation :)
Copyright assignment is seen as a bad thing generally. Why would you want to give up rights on your code?
I really don't care who owns the copyright TBH, as long as I can always freely use the code I have on my hard-drive.
The reason I ask about the copyright thing is that I'm currently working on something that basically adds entirely new files and I wasn't sure if I should add my own copyright blurb in the fileheader or that of someone else. It almost seems like currently the copyright blurbs in the file header comments are more like an "Authorship" or "Attribution" than copyright.
You should definitely do that. You own the copyright, and no other author. And code can't have no copyright holder (unless auto generated perhaps). And you should defintely add yourself for significant changes.
Good to know.
I think it might be useful to put some information about this in the HACKING file so that contributors clearly know whether to put their own copyright in the header, or if not, who's name/info to pass the copyright on to. Also whether they should add their names to the AUTHORS file, or THANKS file, and whether they should update the ChangeLog (if that sticks around) and to update the documentation. It also wouldn't hurt to mention in there that all of the submitted code will become/has to be GPL, just in case that's not clear. We're coders after all, not "law talkin guys".
It's implicitely GPL if you're editing GPL code. That's a) due to copyleft and b) patches generally don't relicense.
Yeah, I just meant as a "note:" in the hacking file that all patches submitted should be GPL'd, just in case newcomers aren't aware and haven't read the COPYING file.
Thanks for the answers!
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Hi Matthew,
As threatened...
On 23 September 2011 13:33, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
Hi,
I was just looking at these files for some reason and a few things struck me as kind of odd. The header of the THANKS file says:
"This file lists all *external* people that have contributed to this project." (emphasis added)
which sounds kind of odd. For example, it seems all of the core developers and regular contributors are listed here. I don't even think of myself as "external", let alone Nick, Frank and Colomban and many others in the list.
And then in AUTHORS, it lists the core developers, and then under "Regular Contributors" it lists only two people. I'm curious what the criteria for being a "Regular Contributor" is, since I've seen a bunch of regular contributions on the ML and patch tracker, many of which were made by people other than those two people. At first I thought it might be people who have SVN commit access, but then there's the COMMITTERS file, so that's not it I don't think. IMHO, anyone in the THANKS file that has actually authored any code or translations should be listed in AUTHORS.
I suspect that these files are rather confused due to lack of love. IMHO if these are not going to be kept up to date they better be deleted.
If they are going to be kept up to date, now before release is the time. IMHO thanks should be *everyone* [1].
The distinction of Authors is questionable to me, it certainly doesn't fulfil the purpose the FSF uses it for [2].
Committers is , well, the committers, not sure why we scruffy mob need to be acknowledged separately though.
On a similar topic, I noticed in the source files, on top of the license in the comments, some files list Nick and Enrico as the copyright holders, some also have Frank, others Colomban, and yet others Lex (and maybe others still). It seems as though if you contribute significant portions of code to a file, you should add your own copyright blurb in the comments? Would it not make more sense to have a single copyright holder for all files in the project, be it a person (ie. the current lead/maintainer), or an organization (ie. The Geany Software Foundation :)
Copyright assignment is used by some projects but as you say there needs to be a legal entity to receive it. And what country would this legal entity exist in? Who would own it and how wold it be run and paid for. And legal paperwork is needed for contributions, including employer disclaimer (to prove they don't own the software you write). All in all Noooooooo.
Copyright law isn't uniform around the world, but I have been advised that the most common is that:
1. the originator has copyright whether they want it or not, and usually automatically without having to claim it 2. the copyright holder can license the work under any license (or more than one) 3. the year isn't needed to claim copyright, but to indicate when the copyright terminates (given the lifetime of software this is moot)
Someone who submits a patch no matter how small or large and whether they commit it directly or someone else commits it, they still own copyright in that patch, but by submitting it for inclusion in a GPLed work implicitly allow it to be released under that license and this cannot be withdrawn.
The best advice I have is that such contributions need to be listed somewhere with any source release and the changelog (for tarballs) and the repository history (for online) is ok, so long as they note the original contributor and the file header acknowledges the copyright of such contributions. Our header does not and technically Enrico, Nick et al are claiming copyright of material they have no right to, so it should be changed to acknowledge such contributions as a group.
Then the header copyright notices do not need to be updated in any way.
When I made significant changes to build.c I added myself to the header to make it clear that I owned copyright to material in the file and that I explicitly allowed that material to be released under the GPL, but I was too lazy to do it to all files with only minor contributions[3], but if we had a general notice that wouldn't be needed.
Also, if someone contributes a significant amount of code to one or more files, does that mean they hand-over the copyright of that code to one (or maybe all?) of those people listed in the various file headers?
Too complex, and who?
The reason I ask about the copyright thing is that I'm currently working on something that basically adds entirely new files and I wasn't sure if I should add my own copyright blurb in the fileheader or that of someone else. It almost seems like currently the copyright blurbs in the file header comments are more like an "Authorship" or "Attribution" than copyright.
For whole new files you own the entire copyright so you should put yourself. If you copy code from elsewhere you need to acknowledge that too. You should use the same header as the rest of the project to make administering it easier, ie its all the same license.
I think it might be useful to put some information about this in the HACKING file so that contributors clearly know whether to put their own copyright in the header, or if not, who's name/info to pass the copyright on to. Also whether they should add their names to the AUTHORS file, or THANKS file, and whether they should update the ChangeLog (if that sticks around) and to update the documentation. It also wouldn't hurt to mention in there that all of the submitted code will become/has to be GPL, just in case that's not clear. We're coders after all, not "law talkin guys".
To take the points in order:
1. yes the project needs to address it and the HACKING file is a suitable place. 2. I think THANKS go to everyone who contributes code, documentation, translation, even criticism :) and as we continue to benefit from such contributions the thanks should be eternal, not just for each release. Adding yourself in the patch is probably worthwhile, or auto add to it from the acknowledgements in the VCS log. 3. having said the above I don't see the purpose of the authors file, it doesn't meet the Gnu use [2] so I'm not sure its needed. 4. The changelog is needed for tarballs since they don't have access to the VCS log, but they should be the same and as discussed elsewhere the changelog should be created from the VCS log. The VCS log should acknowledge the original contributor of all changes, "Patch by ...", "From an idea by ..." etc silence means the committer. 5. Noting that contributions will be licensed under the GPL isn't strictly needed but is a good idea and polite anyway.
Cheers Lex
[1] http://www.gnu.org/s/womb/gnits/THANKS-file.html#THANKS-file [2] http://www.gnu.org/s/womb/gnits/AUTHORS-file.html#AUTHORS-file [3] http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html#Legally-... but note that this is not necessarily the case in all jurisdictions
Cheers, Matthew Brush _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
On 09/23/2011 06:40 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
Hi Matthew,
As threatened...
Heh, thanks, they're good details that confirm what I've observed from various other projects.
I was just looking at these files for some reason [...]
I suspect that these files are rather confused due to lack of love. IMHO if these are not going to be kept up to date they better be deleted.
Given the other information you provided, I'd say, at least after the Git switch that the AUTHORS (and COMMITTERS) files should just be generated from git log for tarballs. If someone just provides a plain diff for a patch, you can still set the author to them (not sure can SVN do this?). If they send a pull request/git format-patch it's automatic.
If they are going to be kept up to date, now before release is the time. IMHO thanks should be *everyone* [1].
Seems to make sense, though it could be a pain. IMO, the bug number that's currently used (I think) is enough for bug/feature tracker stuff. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of these in the THANKS file:
... Anonymous http://accounts.google.com - reported some bug Anonymous <no known email address> - requested some feature ...
On a similar topic, I noticed in the source files, on top of the license in the comments, some files list Nick and Enrico as the copyright holders, some [...]
Copyright assignment is used by some projects but as you say there needs to be a legal entity to receive it. And what country would this legal entity exist in? Who would own it and how wold it be run and paid for. And legal paperwork is needed for contributions, including employer disclaimer (to prove they don't own the software you write). All in all Noooooooo.
For Geany I would've said the project lead/maintainer with the copyrights getting transferred when the person filling that role changes. But yeah, way too much hassle for all the legal requirements.
Copyright law isn't uniform around the world, but I have been advised that the most common is that:
- the originator has copyright whether they want it or not, and
usually automatically without having to claim it
Which means just having a proper VCS log (with proper author) would be enough to track all the bits and pieces of who owns copyright on what? Seems like that would be better than listing every single copyright info for everyone who ever changed the file. If the ChangeLog is generated from the VCS log, IIUC it will have all the required info for tarballs.
Also, if someone contributes a significant amount of code to one or more files, does that mean they hand-over the copyright of that code to one (or maybe all?) of those people listed in the various file headers?
Too complex, and who?
Ok, just was curious whether the act of submitting code to the Geany project implicitly signed over copyright. I guess it doesn't work like that :)
Thanks again!
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Hi all,
I thought I should make it clear why I think this is worth a few seconds consideration.
As the Geany project is not an entity any issues with copyright will be directed at individuals. and lately there seems to have been an increasing willingness to do so. And in many countries.
So we need to show reasonable efforts to manage copyright, which is what the licensing is based on. This might not be protection, but it may be mitigation.
[...]
Given the other information you provided, I'd say, at least after the Git switch that the AUTHORS (and COMMITTERS) files should just be generated from git log for tarballs. If someone just provides a plain diff for a patch, you can still set the author to them (not sure can SVN do this?). If they send a pull request/git format-patch it's automatic.
Yes, the more automatic we can make it the better, fewer mistakes.
If they are going to be kept up to date, now before release is the time. IMHO thanks should be *everyone* [1].
Seems to make sense, though it could be a pain. IMO, the bug number that's currently used (I think) is enough for bug/feature tracker stuff. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of these in the THANKS file:
... Anonymous http://accounts.google.com - reported some bug Anonymous <no known email address> - requested some feature ...
I think it should just be a list of names, what the thanks is for is never up to date, eg just taking the first name, it seems Frank hasn't done any work in the translation area :).
Since the project doesn't work on Karma or points there should be no attempt to distinguish levels of thanks, and the names should be sorted (in Unicode code point order to avoid language sorting arguments).
On a similar topic, I noticed in the source files, on top of the license in the comments, some files list Nick and Enrico as the copyright holders, some [...]
Copyright assignment is used by some projects but as you say there needs to be a legal entity to receive it. And what country would this legal entity exist in? Who would own it and how wold it be run and paid for. And legal paperwork is needed for contributions, including employer disclaimer (to prove they don't own the software you write). All in all Noooooooo.
For Geany I would've said the project lead/maintainer with the copyrights getting transferred when the person filling that role changes. But yeah, way too much hassle for all the legal requirements.
Copyright law isn't uniform around the world, but I have been advised that the most common is that:
- the originator has copyright whether they want it or not, and
usually automatically without having to claim it
Which means just having a proper VCS log (with proper author) would be enough to track all the bits and pieces of who owns copyright on what? Seems like that would be better than listing every single copyright info for everyone who ever changed the file. If the ChangeLog is generated from the VCS log, IIUC it will have all the required info for tarballs.
Thats the idea, note that not all legal advice says this is enough, but in lieu of paper it is reasonable, especially if the repositories are hard to forge.
Also, if someone contributes a significant amount of code to one or more files, does that mean they hand-over the copyright of that code to one (or maybe all?) of those people listed in the various file headers?
Too complex, and who?
Ok, just was curious whether the act of submitting code to the Geany project implicitly signed over copyright. I guess it doesn't work like that :)
No, IIUC assigning copyright is a much heavier transaction than granting a license and must be explicit, so it is ok for permission to grant a GPL license to be implied (especially if we add it to hacking), but assigning copyright still needs unforgeable documentation, which pretty much means paper with signatures :(
Cheers Lex
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:03:23 -0700 Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
Ok, just was curious whether the act of submitting code to the Geany project implicitly signed over copyright. I guess it doesn't work like that :)
Nope, no copyleft as you might no from GNU or OpenOffice/LibreOffice.
Cheers, Frank
Am 24.09.2011 03:40, schrieb Lex Trotman:
The distinction of Authors is questionable to me, it certainly doesn't fulfil the purpose the FSF uses it for [2].
Agreed.
Committers is , well, the committers, not sure why we scruffy mob need to be acknowledged separately though.
It's useful for newcomers to find contact persons. Also useful for svn name->real name mapping.
Best regards.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:33:22 -0700 Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
Would it not make more sense to have a single copyright holder for all files in the project, be it a person (ie. the current lead/maintainer), or an organization (ie. The Geany Software Foundation :)
Well, we can discuss about this topic, but establishing will not be that easy as we having the same issue the linux-kernel is having. We just cannot reach anybody who contributed to Geany to ask for a Copyleft which will be needed here.
Cheers, Frank
On 25 September 2011 07:27, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:33:22 -0700 Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
Would it not make more sense to have a single copyright holder for all files in the project, be it a person (ie. the current lead/maintainer), or an organization (ie. The Geany Software Foundation :)
Well, we can discuss about this topic, but establishing will not be that easy as we having the same issue the linux-kernel is having. We just cannot reach anybody who contributed to Geany to ask for a Copyleft which will be needed here.
A very good practical point Frank.
Hence my suggestion to add something like "Copyright 2xxx-2xxx various contributors (as recorded in the change history)." to all files.
Cheers Lex
Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel