6:14 a.m.
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.
>
> 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/dber
> range :|
>