On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:10 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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(a)redhat.com>
>> > 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(a)redhat.com>
>> > > > 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(a)gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <
>> > > davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P.
Berrangé <
>> > > > > berrange(a)redhat.com>
>> > > > > > >> 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.
>>
>
> 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.