On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:02:51PM -0500, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, this does not matter. They were there originally. It is not about who did what work, it is about changing and explicitly violating the copyright.
i am not a lawyer. i don't know how legal saying "i the author of something" when "i am definitely not". when Aurelien created a new file from scratch, he added a "copyright 2002-2006 Judd" line, which is - afaik - not valid, since: 1) the author of the file is Aurelien 2) the file was nowhere in 2002
Frankly, I find it rather rude that you guys would go through and say "whoops, no judd here". It's not something you do lightly, as it required you to explicitly go through CVS logs to check.
the copyrights were not valid, since they stated the only copyright holder is Judd which is not true. so we had to fix them and the easiest way was to fix them according to the cvs logs
Even then, there's alot of changes on files that have no other changes (at least in this diff) beyond just the copyright notices.
I know people take this stuff lightly, but in reality this is a crucial point of the GPL.
okay, i hope we can discuss this and finally the invalid copyrights can be fixed in the cvs. if you don't like our script then fix them by hand: the current situation is not clear, since there are more than one people in the AUTHORS file, but the copyrights in the source files states the only copyright holder is Judd and again, please show where are the files where Judd's line is removed http://darcs.frugalware.org/darcsweb/darcsweb.cgi?r=pacman;a=darcs_commitdif...; ^ the only file here is server.h, to where _i_ was who added Judd's copyright line since i've just copy&pasted the header from an other file udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org