[Geany-devel] AUTHORS && THANKS files
mbrush at xxxxx
Sat Sep 24 05:31:09 UTC 2011
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!
More information about the Devel