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 outdated and incomplete.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 ?