[libvirt] [PATCH] xenconfig: Remove references to my name and email
Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym Signed-off-by: David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> --- src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c | 2 +- src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h | 2 +- tests/xlconfigtest.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c b/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c index 35d52f8a..0343a73c 100644 --- a/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c +++ b/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ * License along with this library. If not, see * <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. * - * Author: Kiarie Kahurani <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> + * Author: Oneko <kawaiii.nekomata@gmail.com> * Author: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com> */ diff --git a/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h b/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h index 68f332ac..4ce13f05 100644 --- a/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h +++ b/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ * License along with this library. If not, see * <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. * - * Author: Kiarie Kahurani<davidkiarie4@gmail.com> + * Author: Oneko <kawaiii.nekomata@gmail.com> */ #ifndef __VIR_XEN_XL_H__ diff --git a/tests/xlconfigtest.c b/tests/xlconfigtest.c index 39f51e2d..1bbc0b72 100644 --- a/tests/xlconfigtest.c +++ b/tests/xlconfigtest.c @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ * <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. * * Author: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> - * Author: Kiarie Kahurani <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> + * Author: Oneko <kawaiii.nekomata@gmail.com> * */ -- 2.17.0
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym
Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making silly mistakes.
Signed-off-by: David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> --- src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c | 2 +- src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h | 2 +- tests/xlconfigtest.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c b/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c index 35d52f8a..0343a73c 100644 --- a/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c +++ b/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ * License along with this library. If not, see * <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. * - * Author: Kiarie Kahurani <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> + * Author: Oneko <kawaiii.nekomata@gmail.com> * Author: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com> */
diff --git a/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h b/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h index 68f332ac..4ce13f05 100644 --- a/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h +++ b/src/xenconfig/xen_xl.h @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ * License along with this library. If not, see * <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. * - * Author: Kiarie Kahurani<davidkiarie4@gmail.com> + * Author: Oneko <kawaiii.nekomata@gmail.com> */
#ifndef __VIR_XEN_XL_H__ diff --git a/tests/xlconfigtest.c b/tests/xlconfigtest.c index 39f51e2d..1bbc0b72 100644 --- a/tests/xlconfigtest.c +++ b/tests/xlconfigtest.c @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ * <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. * * Author: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> - * Author: Kiarie Kahurani <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> + * Author: Oneko <kawaiii.nekomata@gmail.com> * */
-- 2.17.0
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym
Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym
Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work. I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym
Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
I initally requested to have my name removed from the files but apparently I hadn't signed off the patch so it was rejected. One month later, I figured it might be a bad idea to just give up all the work I had done and opted to keep track of it.
On 05/07/2018 08:57 AM, David Kiarie wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym > > > > Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making > silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
I initally requested to have my name removed from the files but apparently I hadn't signed off the patch so it was rejected.
You could have simply replied to the mail requesting a SOB and one of us would have added it your patch and pushed it.
One month later, I figured it might be a bad idea to just give up all the work I had done and opted to keep track of it.
I think that is a wise choice, in which case you should leave the authorship as is :-). Regards, Jim
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com> wrote:
On 05/07/2018 08:57 AM, David Kiarie wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie < davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym > > > > Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making > silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
I initally requested to have my name removed from the files but apparently I hadn't signed off the patch so it was rejected.
You could have simply replied to the mail requesting a SOB and one of us would have added it your patch and pushed it.
One month later, I figured it might be a bad idea to just give up all the
work I had done and opted to keep track of it.
I think that is a wise choice, in which case you should leave the authorship as is :-).
I do have a good reason as to why I would like to remove my name from these files which I will not bother explaining. And I actually do want my name removed from these files. Removing my name on the other hand means I give up on something which I painstakingly worked on for almost one year. I went for another choice but apparently someone suggested that they don't allow pseudonmyns on files and that's just synonymous with me asking you to remove my work from from the file.
Regards, Jim
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com> wrote:
On 05/07/2018 08:57 AM, David Kiarie wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie < davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym > > > > Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making > silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
I initally requested to have my name removed from the files but apparently I hadn't signed off the patch so it was rejected.
You could have simply replied to the mail requesting a SOB and one of us would have added it your patch and pushed it.
One month later, I figured it might be a bad idea to just give up all the
work I had done and opted to keep track of it.
I think that is a wise choice, in which case you should leave the authorship as is :-).
I do have a good reason as to why I would like to remove my name from these files which I will not bother explaining. And I actually do want my name removed from these files.
Removing my name on the other hand means I give up on something which I painstakingly worked on for almost one year.
I went for another choice but apparently someone suggested that they don't allow pseudonmyns on files and that's just synonymous with me asking you to remove my work from from the file.
It's just quite unbelieve-able that I am a black person, I trying to build a career as a software developer and having a lot of problems with people online - which is irrevant. I wrote this code as part of GSoC - which is *not* a job and that means I own the code I wrote and a bunch of professionals are busy making my life even more difficult. I need someone to either give me a reason as to why this patch will not be merged or may be just clearly state that you will not merging this patch. I don't need any suggestions.
Regards, Jim
On 05/08/2018 03:22 AM, David Kiarie wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com <mailto:jfehlig@suse.com>> wrote:
On 05/07/2018 08:57 AM, David Kiarie wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com> <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>>> wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com> <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com>>> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com> <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym > > > > Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making > silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
I initally requested to have my name removed from the files but apparently I hadn't signed off the patch so it was rejected.
You could have simply replied to the mail requesting a SOB and one of us would have added it your patch and pushed it.
One month later, I figured it might be a bad idea to just give up all the work I had done and opted to keep track of it.
I think that is a wise choice, in which case you should leave the authorship as is :-).
I do have a good reason as to why I would like to remove my name from these files which I will not bother explaining. And I actually do want my name removed from these files.
Understood. We could have pushed the first version of your patch if it had a SOB. Presence of a SOB is enforced by a commit hook, so the patch couldn't be pushed without it. That wasn't enforced when you were working on the project. Apologies for not making that clearer at the beginning of this thread, saving everyone some time.
Removing my name on the other hand means I give up on something which I painstakingly worked on for almost one year.
As Daniel already mentioned, git contains a better history of your contributions. Interaction with the project is also recorded in the mail list archives. Regards, Jim
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2018 03:22 AM, David Kiarie wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com <mailto: jfehlig@suse.com>> wrote:
On 05/07/2018 08:57 AM, David Kiarie wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM, David Kiarie < davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com> <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>>> wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa < pkrempa@redhat.com <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com> <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com <mailto:pkrempa@redhat.com>>> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com> <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym > > > > Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making > silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
I initally requested to have my name removed from the files but apparently I hadn't signed off the patch so it was rejected.
You could have simply replied to the mail requesting a SOB and one of us would have added it your patch and pushed it.
One month later, I figured it might be a bad idea to just give up all the work I had done and opted to keep track of it.
I think that is a wise choice, in which case you should leave the authorship as is :-).
I do have a good reason as to why I would like to remove my name from these files which I will not bother explaining. And I actually do want my name removed from these files.
Understood. We could have pushed the first version of your patch if it had a SOB. Presence of a SOB is enforced by a commit hook, so the patch couldn't be pushed without it. That wasn't enforced when you were working on the project. Apologies for not making that clearer at the beginning of this thread, saving everyone some time.
Removing my name on the other hand means I give up on something which I
painstakingly worked on for almost one year.
As Daniel already mentioned, git contains a better history of your contributions. Interaction with the project is also recorded in the mail list archives.
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 ?
Regards, Jim
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. 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/dberrange :|
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.
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. The Author lines are not part of the license notice so that's free to be modified or removed. 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/dberrange :|
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@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 ?
The Author lines are not part of the license notice so that's free to be modified or removed.
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/ dberrange :|
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@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.
The Author lines are not part of the license notice so that's free to be modified or removed.
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 :|
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@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 ? Or, would you rather I use the pseudonym 'Oneko Ltd' instead of just 'Oneko' ?
The Author lines are not part of the license notice so that's free to be modified or removed.
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 :|
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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@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. 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/dberrange :|
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <
berrange@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
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
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,
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:36:35PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: the the 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 ?
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/ dberrange :|
[...]
> >> 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 ?
Sooo... without GSOC and SUSE's support through their employee Jim Fehlig would you have written that code on your own and tried to have it included in libvirt? I would think SUSE has a stake in the written code as their resource(s) were being used. Yes, they benefit from it, but so did you as you can point to that code as being authored by you. I don't think anyone is indicating you didn't write the code. Using a pseudonym is not allowed as part of the project's policy.
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 ?
INAL, but altering a copyright after the fact to include a "new" company name that was either not involved in the authorship of the code or not a company at the time of authorship could result in legal issues. Does SUSE decide/desire to release their copyright claim to the new company? Does the new company stand to gain something by the copyright claim? John
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> 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 ?
Sooo... without GSOC and SUSE's support through their employee Jim Fehlig would you have written that code on your own and tried to have it included in libvirt? I would think SUSE has a stake in the written code as their resource(s) were being used. Yes, they benefit from it, but so did you as you can point to that code as being authored by you.
I did this project in 2014 - to be honest, at the time, at least, most student were evaluated on merit.
I don't think anyone is indicating you didn't write the code. Using a pseudonym is not allowed as part of the project's policy.
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 ?
INAL, but altering a copyright after the fact to include a "new" company name that was either not involved in the authorship of the code or not a company at the time of authorship could result in legal issues. Does SUSE decide/desire to release their copyright claim to the new company? Does the new company stand to gain something by the copyright claim?
We don't have a new company here. We have an almost four year old cat.
John
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> 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 ?
Sooo... without GSOC and SUSE's support through their employee Jim Fehlig would you have written that code on your own and tried to have it included in libvirt? I would think SUSE has a stake in the written code as their resource(s) were being used. Yes, they benefit from it, but so did you as you can point to that code as being authored by you.
I did this project in 2014 - to be honest, at the time, at least, most student were evaluated on merit.
GSoC is just a totally wasted project since Carols left :-(
I don't think anyone is indicating you didn't write the code. Using a pseudonym is not allowed as part of the project's policy.
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 ?
INAL, but altering a copyright after the fact to include a "new" company name that was either not involved in the authorship of the code or not a company at the time of authorship could result in legal issues. Does SUSE decide/desire to release their copyright claim to the new company? Does the new company stand to gain something by the copyright claim?
We don't have a new company here. We have an almost four year old cat.
John
On 05/09/2018 01:51 PM, David Kiarie wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> 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 ?
Sooo... without GSOC and SUSE's support through their employee Jim Fehlig would you have written that code on your own and tried to have it included in libvirt? I would think SUSE has a stake in the written code as their resource(s) were being used. Yes, they benefit from it, but so did you as you can point to that code as being authored by you.
I did this project in 2014 - to be honest, at the time, at least, most student were evaluated on merit.
GSoC is just a totally wasted project since Carols left :-(
I'm not going to get into authorship discussion, enough has been said. But being org admin for libvirt since 2013 I've been dealing with both Carol and Stephanie and frankly both of them are awesome and try/tried their best. At every Mentor summit we have a discussion what went well and what we can do better. They collect ideas and put them in practice. And despite your comments I think GSoC has been a great success for libvirt too. We have students coming back, students who stay after program ends and contribute afterwards, students whose code is still used (I just used wireshark dissector the other day). Michal
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> Suse copyright notice has been on this file since the day
On 05/09/2018 01:51 PM, David Kiarie wrote: 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 ?
Sooo... without GSOC and SUSE's support through their employee Jim Fehlig would you have written that code on your own and tried to have it included in libvirt? I would think SUSE has a stake in the written code as their resource(s) were being used. Yes, they benefit from it, but so did you as you can point to that code as being authored by you
What SUSE resource ?
.
I did this project in 2014 - to be honest, at the time, at least, most student were evaluated on merit.
GSoC is just a totally wasted project since Carols left :-(
I'm not going to get into authorship discussion, enough has been said. But being org admin for libvirt since 2013 I've been dealing with both Carol and Stephanie and frankly both of them are awesome and try/tried their best. At every Mentor summit we have a discussion what went well and what we can do better. They collect ideas and put them in practice.
And despite your comments I think GSoC has been a great success for libvirt too. We have students coming back, students who stay after program ends and contribute afterwards, students whose code is still used (I just used wireshark dissector the other day).
Michal
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Oneko <kawaiii.nekomata@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com>
wrote:
[...]
> >> Suse copyright notice has been on this file since the day
On 05/09/2018 01:51 PM, David Kiarie wrote: 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 ?
Sooo... without GSOC and SUSE's support through their employee Jim Fehlig would you have written that code on your own and tried to have it included in libvirt? I would think SUSE has a stake in the written code as their resource(s) were being used. Yes, they benefit from it, but so did you as you can point to that code as being authored by you
What SUSE resource ?
.
I did this project in 2014 - to be honest, at the time, at least, most student were evaluated on merit.
GSoC is just a totally wasted project since Carols left :-(
I'm not going to get into authorship discussion, enough has been said. But being org admin for libvirt since 2013 I've been dealing with both Carol and Stephanie and frankly both of them are awesome and try/tried their best. At every Mentor summit we have a discussion what went well and what we can do better. They collect ideas and put them in practice.
And despite your comments I think GSoC has been a great success for libvirt too. We have students coming back, students who stay after program ends and contribute afterwards, students whose code is still used (I just used wireshark dissector the other day).
I respect your opinion but that wouldn't mean my work is there for for Suse corporation to copyright. I will assume my pseudonym as my legal name(that is if Kenyan laws don't allow one to copyright work on a pseudonym) and I will copyright this code on the name.
Michal
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:29:35PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
We don't have a new company here. We have an almost four year old cat.
IANAL, but I think there's a precedent [1] for this, where at least a US court ruled that "Specifically, the Copyright Office will not register works produced by 'nature, animals, or plants' including, by specific example, a 'photograph taken by a monkey.'". I think it would be difficult for your cat to claim copyright. (sorry for adding to the noise...) [1] Naruto et al v. David Slater - https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2015cv0...
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Fabian Freyer < fabian.freyer@physik.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:29:35PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
We don't have a new company here. We have an almost four year old cat.
IANAL, but I think there's a precedent [1] for this, where at least a US court ruled that "Specifically, the Copyright Office will not register works produced by 'nature, animals, or plants' including, by specific example, a 'photograph taken by a monkey.'". I think it would be difficult for your cat to claim copyright.
Fortunately on unfortunately, I don't live in the US.
(sorry for adding to the noise...)
[1] Naruto et al v. David Slater - https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3: 2015cv04324/291324/45/0.pdf?ts=1454149106
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@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <
berrange@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
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
> 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,
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:36:35PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: the the 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. 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/dberrange :|
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@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@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <
wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <
berrange@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
davidkiarie4@gmail.com> 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
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:47:26PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: the
> > > 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
> > 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,
Author the 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 ?
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/ dberrange :|
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@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@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@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <
wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé < berrange@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
davidkiarie4@gmail.com> 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
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:47:26PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: the
>> > > 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
>> > 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,
Author the 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. 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/dberrange :|
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <
> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé < berrange@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
davidkiarie4@gmail.com> 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
the
Author
>>> > > lines in file headers, these Copyright lines in source files are at >>> best >>> > > outdated and incomplete. Anyone who wishes to identify
>>> > > 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
>>> > 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,
copyright the 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
if
they wish to. The Suse copyright is there simply because their
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:05:54PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: like the line 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.
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/ dberrange :|
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:10 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@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@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@gmail.com
wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie < davidkiarie4@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé < berrange@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,
> >>> 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
the
Author > >>> > > lines in file headers, these Copyright lines in source files are at > >>> best > >>> > > outdated and incomplete. Anyone who wishes to identify
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
of
the > >>> > license statement? That's a cleanup which I'll gladly do. > >>> > >>> No, you can not delete other people's Copyright lines -
> >>> 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
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
if
they wish to. The Suse copyright is there simply because their
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:05:54PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: planning, like the the top they are this line 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 :|
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:10 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé < berrange@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@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@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie < davidkiarie4@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé < > berrange@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,
> > >>> 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
the
> Author > > >>> > > lines in file headers, these Copyright lines in source files are > at > > >>> best > > >>> > > outdated and incomplete. Anyone who wishes to identify
> 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
of
> the > > >>> > license statement? That's a cleanup which I'll gladly do. > > >>> > > >>> No, you can not delete other people's Copyright lines -
> > >>> 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
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
if
> they wish to. The Suse copyright is there simply because their
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:05:54PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote: planning, like the the top they are this line 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.
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 :|
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 05:55:51PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym
Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
FWIW, the Author lines are largely irrelevant when looking at who authored code, they are at best incomplete, and at worst outright misleading, so we tend to recommend people not to pay attention to them. The GIT history contains the true accurate authorship information and your name is still recorded there, so the fact that you did the work would not be lost even without the Author line present. If anything I would suggst we could bulk remove them from all code since because of their incomplete & misleading nature, but that's a larger can of worms. 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/dberrange :|
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 05:55:51PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie < davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym
Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
FWIW, the Author lines are largely irrelevant when looking at who authored code, they are at best incomplete, and at worst outright misleading, so we tend to recommend people not to pay attention to them. The GIT history contains the true accurate authorship information and your name is still recorded there, so the fact that you did the work would not be lost even without the Author line present.
Aiming to be an independent developer and already working on that (I am actually not formally employed at the moment), this would definitely be a huge part of my portifolio and I did actually do quite a bit of work on the code on those files. I'm not sure what to do either so I just sent both patches.
If anything I would suggst we could bulk remove them from all code since because of their incomplete & misleading nature, but that's a larger can of worms.
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/ dberrange :|
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 03:42:27PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 05:55:51PM +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:17:05 +0300, David Kiarie wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:15 PM, David Kiarie < davidkiarie4@gmail.com> wrote:
Replace references to my name and email with a pseudonym
Sorry, I just want my real name and email off these files and I keep making silly mistakes.
How about just deleting them? We don't really support using pseudonyms.
Why is that ? With a person reason I don't want my name of these files. I wrote the files and it took me a lot of work.
I can still prove I wrote this code with the above email if anyone wants me to as I still work as a developer.
FWIW, the Author lines are largely irrelevant when looking at who authored code, they are at best incomplete, and at worst outright misleading, so we tend to recommend people not to pay attention to them. The GIT history contains the true accurate authorship information and your name is still recorded there, so the fact that you did the work would not be lost even without the Author line present.
Aiming to be an independent developer and already working on that (I am actually not formally employed at the moment), this would definitely be a huge part of my portifolio and I did actually do quite a bit of work on the code on those files.
BTW, I meant to include a link in the previous message - this shows how to get a report of all your contributions: https://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=search;s=davidkiarie4@gmail.com;st=... 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/dberrange :|
participants (8)
-
Daniel P. Berrangé -
David Kiarie -
Fabian Freyer -
Jim Fehlig -
John Ferlan -
Michal Privoznik -
Oneko -
Peter Krempa