On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/15 06:38 PM, Dan McGee wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 21/01/15 04:26, Robin de Rooij wrote:
From 749dde01efdde4c69491c36c1244a112de54ce52 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Robin de Rooij <rderooij685@famousgoglemailhoster.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 22:36:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Changed copyright to 2006 - 2015 in version info
The copyright notice still displayed: 2006 - 2014. I changed the version method to 2006 - 2015
This needs to be part of a larger patch that changes all our copyright years to the correct range.
We go through this seemingly silly exercise every year. Is it truly necessary?
AFAIK, it does have meaning (extends the lifetime of the copyright, which expires N years after that date) but nothing stops you from treating the entire project as one work and only having a top-level license + copyright headers.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear here - I meant the "update every file" exercise, not the "we should extend the copyright dates somewhere" bit.
We have this kind of thing now:
/* * pacman.c * * Copyright (c) 2006-2014 Pacman Development Team < pacman-dev@archlinux.org> * Copyright (c) 2002-2006 by Judd Vinet <jvinet@zeroflux.org> *
If we did something like this instead, we can then have one central COPYRIGHT file perhaps?
/* * pacman.c * * See the COPYRIGHT file for individual attributions. *
COPYRIGHT would look something like this:
Portions of this codebase fall under various copyrights and authorships.
As
the code is a continual work in progress and has been moved around and reshaped over time, copyright assignment to individual files does not always reflect reality. Please use version control tools to better grasp the lineage and history of a given piece of code. Known copyright holders include the following:
* Copyright (c) 2001 by François Gouget <fgouget_at_codeweavers.com> * Copyright (c) 2002-2006 by Judd Vinet <jvinet@zeroflux.org> * Copyright (c) 2005 by Aurelien Foret <orelien@chez.com> * Copyright (c) 2005-2006 by Christian Hamar <krics@linuxforum.hu> * Copyright (c) 2005-2006 by Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> * Copyright (c) 2006 by David Kimpe <dnaku@frugalware.org> * Copyright (c) 2006 by Andras Voroskoi <voroskoi@frugalware.org> * Copyright (c) 2006 by Alex Smith <alex@alex-smith.me.uk> * Copyright (c) 2007 by Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> * Copyright (c) 2009 by Xavier Chantry <shiningxc@gmail.com> * Copyright (c) 2006-2015 by Pacman Development Team < pacman-dev@archlinux.org>
Thoughts? The copyright at file granularity concept seems super outdated to me.
It seems entirely useless if the project is under a unified license.
If there are various licenses, then isolating them can make sense. A project might want to preserve liberal licensing for some files even though it primarily uses the GPL, or it might want to isolate some GPL code so the project can be liberally licensed if it is removed. None of that is applicable to Pacman AFAIK
Almost everything is under a unified license. There are a few exceptions as far as original source, and I believe this covers all of them. I would leave this subset of files alone and not include them in the unified COPYRIGHT file, as they come from PolarSSL originally: lib/libalpm/base64.{c,h} lib/libalpm/md5.{c,h} lib/libalpm/sha2.{c,h} Finally, this one is probably misleading and needs fixing anyway, as we have borrowed the code from rpm but didn't seem to preserve the copyright: lib/libalpm/version.c -Dan