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(a)gmail.com&gt; > 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 5:55 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)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(a)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.

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 Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig(a)suse.com&gt; wrote: > On 05/07/2018 08:57 AM, David Kiarie wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:davidkiarie4@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)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(a)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.

On 05/08/2018 03:22 AM, David Kiarie wrote: > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig(a)suse.com <mailto: > jfehlig(a)suse.com&gt;&gt; wrote: > > On 05/07/2018 08:57 AM, David Kiarie wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM, David Kiarie < > davidkiarie4(a)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(a)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(a)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 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.

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 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; > 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 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&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com&gt; > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé < berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; > >> 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 :|

[...] > > >> 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 2:29 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com&gt; 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 :-(

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 05/09/2018 01:51 PM, David Kiarie wrote: > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM, David Kiarie <davidkiarie4(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com&gt; > 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 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 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: 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(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.

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&gt; > 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&gt; > > > 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&gt; > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé < > > > > berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > >> 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.

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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; > 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&gt; >> > 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&gt; >> > > > 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&gt; >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé < >> > > > > berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; >> > > > > > >> 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 :| >> > >

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(a)redhat.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > 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 :|