On 9/28/06, Judd Vinet wrote:

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:48:28PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

Ok, I think it's about time I picked up pacman developement, seeing as we really have no one else doing it. I've been busy, so I was really hoping someone else would volunteer, but what the hell.

I'll get your back when I can, Aaron. I've merged most of the libarchive stuff in, but it's not committed yet. For some reason, the static linking fails. Dynamic one works fine. I tested this with FW's pacman and I had the same error, so it's likely something on my system, not in the pacman build setup.

While you're available... do you seriously like sw=2 ts=2 ? I was going to bring that up and see if it offended anyone to switch to 4/4 - though I guess if you just use noet, and remove those settings, it'd be up to the editor (modelines override editor settings).

2006/9/28, Judd Vinet :

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:48:28PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

Ok, I think it's about time I picked up pacman developement, seeing as we really have no one else doing it. I've been busy, so I was really hoping someone else would volunteer, but what the hell.

I'll get your back when I can, Aaron. I've merged most of the libarchive stuff in, but it's not committed yet. For some reason, the static linking fails. Dynamic one works fine. I tested this with FW's pacman and I had the same error, so it's likely something on my system, not in the pacman build setup.

Finally! :-D Thanks, guys! BTW, it's offtopic a bit, but I'm just curious - where is Aurelien Foret? I know that he discontinued Pacman 3 development, but where is he? I heard nothing about him for more than half of the year. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 04:00:43PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

Ok, I don't have a link to your web view (darcs IIRC), can you send that, so I can take a peek - it's probably on your front page somewhere, but I'm at work and rather busy.

http://darcs.frugalware.org/darcsweb/darcsweb.cgi?r=pacman

...

when i first saw pacman, i had two big issues and two small ones: - if foo conflicted with bar, and foo was installed pacman -S bar did not work (that patch is already merged to the cvs)

I'm not sure I understand this one. If foo and bar conflict, bar shouldn't be installed if foo is installed... can you explain this case more?

pacman2 offered to remove foo and installed bar. nowadays pacamn3 does the same

This will remove quite alot of repetative install files (depmod for modules, all the font stuff for fonts, all the gnome stuff, vim doc regeneration for vim plugins, etc etc).

the ability to create such hooks is a great idea, imho :) udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

2006. 09. 28, csütörtök keltezéssel 12.09-kor Judd Vinet ezt írta:

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:48:28PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

Ok, I think it's about time I picked up pacman developement, seeing as we really have no one else doing it. I've been busy, so I was really hoping someone else would volunteer, but what the hell.

I'll get your back when I can, Aaron. I've merged most of the libarchive stuff in, but it's not committed yet. For some reason, the static linking fails. Dynamic one works fine. I tested this with FW's pacman and I had the same error, so it's likely something on my system, not in the pacman build setup.

Nice to hear this :) I like libarchive patch and i hope you can deal with it. Once that done, you can apply many patches that depends on libarchive patchset. Like the progressbar, package-counter, etc. Huhm any error about this? :) Maybe some autotools* braindead problem and maybe i can solve it :) An idea for this. BE sure that libarchive NOT compiled with ACL support. libarchive does only checks and if ACL available in system then it pulls it into itself and links with -lacl . pacman's autotools* now cant handle this, because there is no way to discover that libarchive was compiled with ACL or not. I talked about the author of libarchive i sent some patches about ACL disable function, but no reply until this. So be sure that libarchive not compiled with ACL support. Or if yes, then rewrite configure.ac part and put a -lacl into CFLAGS. Another: I noticed when you build with --disable-static (in configure) then it wants to do pacman.static (libalpm.static not created) as i remember. I think this bug still exists. But it just a cosmetics to autotools* :) Regards Christian Hamar alias krix

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:22:37 +0200, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On 9/28/06, Judd Vinet wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:48:28PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

Ok, I think it's about time I picked up pacman developement, seeing as we really have no one else doing it. I've been busy, so I was really hoping someone else would volunteer, but what the hell.

I'll get your back when I can, Aaron. I've merged most of the libarchive stuff in, but it's not committed yet. For some reason, the static linking fails. Dynamic one works fine. I tested this with FW's pacman and I had the same error, so it's likely something on my system, not in the pacman build setup.

While you're available... do you seriously like sw=2 ts=2 ? I was going to bring that up and see if it offended anyone to switch to 4/4 - though I guess if you just use noet, and remove those settings, it'd be up to the editor (modelines override editor settings).

Good to see some action here again :) I wanted to see if the slow operation with XFS/JFS? could be improved. So i made a script that finds packages without using pacman. It's called pacfind. or whatever you want to call it :) (i think someone alreayd have made a pacfind script? #!/bin/sh if [ "$1" = "-Sd" -a -n "$2" ] then cd /var/lib/pacman/ grep -r -A 1 DESC *|grep -v local/|egrep "desc-.*$2.*"|sed 's/.*desc-/^[[1;33m&\n^[[1;37m/'|sed 's/\/desc-//' # grep -A 1 DESC */*/desc didn't work for some reason :/ elif [ "$1" = "-Ss" -a -n "$2" ] then cd /var/lib/ find pacman -name "*$2*"|grep -ve /local -e '.*testing$' -e '.*AqD$' -e '.*brain0$' -e '.*community$' -e '.*current$' -e '.*extra$' -e '.*karsten$' -e '.*unstable$'|xargs grep -r -A 1 DESC|grep -v DESC -v |grep -v -- --|sed 's|^pacman/||'|sed 's/.*desc-/^[[1;33m&\n^[[1;37m/'|sed 's/\/desc-//' fi # the escape codes won't work ofc. # The -Sd search packgae descriptions # The -Ss search only packagenames Results: searching for packagename takes 15-16 sec now which used to take 1.04m with pacman -Ss -Sd takes 56 sec but is really quite faster than pacman's 1.04m because it starts sooner and only spits out the info slower because of coloring, i suppose. So there's definitively some ground to be covered for pacman and I really hope that pacman3 won't have to be db dependent <:) Also my script could probably be improved by some of you bash gurus :) and also have you guys seen this?: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=22872&highlight=pacman+poll :) me out! -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:12:13 +0200, VMiklos wrote:

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 04:36:10PM +0200, kfs1@online.no wrote:

...

I wanted to see if the slow operation with XFS/JFS? could be improved. So i made a script that finds packages without using pacman.

It's called pacfind. or whatever you want to call it :) (i think someone alreayd have made a pacfind script?

unfortunatelly it will only work with the 'files' backend, if we switch to an other backend (to improve pacman's speed) then it won't work at all

that's what i'm saying... did you read the rest of the email? Anyway, I suppose it doesn't matter much since i'm talking to the head of frugalware pacman not arch. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:29:53PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On a side note, something which is rather important, I noticed on quite a few of these files you guys had removed judd's name in the copyright, and added your own. If I'm not mistaken, this is a rather severe GPL violation - something along the lines of "permission is granted as long as this copyright remains in tact". Please fix this.

you can find a script called copyright.py in the patch, that was used to fix up the copyrights. as far as i know Judd's name was only removed where the author of the file was Aurelien or me (like libalpm/server.c) if you think somewhere it was removed where it should not be, then probably the cvs logs are incorrect but feel free to came up with a list of "invalid" removes adding proper copyright lines are a lot of time and when (according to the cvs logs) judd never touched a file, i don't think he should be in the copyright list. see the kernel source, you can't find Linus' name in every file and of course the basic purpose of the while copyright update is to appropriate Aurelien's and others' work, not hiding Judd's one, i hope this is clear :) udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:02:51PM -0500, Aaron Griffin 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

Hi! I'm not a lawyer, nor I'm strong in interpreting GPL terms, but "one copyright holder - many authors" is common thing in many projects. For example in every source file of SDL (except in those that are just included from other projects) there are the following lines: SDL - Simple DirectMedia Layer Copyright (C) 1997-2006 Sam Lantinga And it doesn't matter that some file didn't exist in 1997, and that most of audio code was (and continues to be) written by Ryan Gordon. There are also other contributors, i.e. maintainers of ports for other platforms. But there is a file named CREDITS, where _all_ contributions and their authors are listed, with many thanks to them. And this is just fine, because in other way there wolud be 10-20 lines of copyright info in many files. As for generating any copyrights info from CVS - then you forget about those who has no acces to CVS but contributed some patches. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:13:02PM +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, nor I'm strong in interpreting GPL terms

nor me :)

but "one copyright holder - many authors" is common thing in many projects. For example in every source file of SDL (except in those that are just included from other projects) there are the following lines: SDL - Simple DirectMedia Layer Copyright (C) 1997-2006 Sam Lantinga And it doesn't matter that some file didn't exist in 1997, and that most of audio code was (and continues to be) written by Ryan Gordon. There are also other contributors, i.e. maintainers of ports for other platforms. But there is a file named CREDITS, where _all_ contributions and their authors are listed, with many thanks to them. And this is just fine, because in other way there wolud be 10-20 lines of copyright info in many files.

good question. i took my ideas from the kernel source, for example: $ grep -c Linus /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200.c 0 so where Linus is not an author, there he isn't listed at all. the situation is the same with MPlayer: $ grep -c Gereoffy libvo/vo_png.c 0 of course maybe all the kernel & MPlayer devs are crazy, but i don't think so :)

As for generating any copyrights info from CVS - then you forget about those who has no acces to CVS but contributed some patches.

the whole issue is about this: Christian and me have no write access to the cvs and our contributions are pushed by others and if they have a good day then they include our names in the cvs log, if they don't have, then they don't even do so udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

Roman Kyrylych wrote:

2006/10/4, VMiklos :

<snip>

Come on, guys! Why not just relax and first come to decission about what copyright info style should be in Pacman - like in SDL or like in kernel & MPlayer?

In the first case there is standard copyright info for entire project, that repeats in _every_ file. Example: SuperProjectX. Copyright (C) 1997-2006, SomeCompany.

In the second case every file has its own copyright info. Example main.c: SuperProjectX. Copyright (C) 1997-2006, SomeCompany. some_functions.c: SuperProjectX. Copyright (C) 1997-2006, SomeCompany. SuperProjectX. SomeFunctions. Copyright (C) 1999-2004, good guy. Some megacool feature support - contriubuted by another good guy.

Then if you come to conclusion - there will be no misunderstandings about what to include and in which form. I don't think any of devs are very bothered with copyrights. There just should be standard policy about this.

exactly! IMOHO... this is a *very* small disctration. I've been lurking here for a while under a huge rock, waiting for activity on pacman-3, and now when Aaron is ready to get things cranking to a release state, we're going to be side tracked by politics? meh! We're way cooler than this I believe. Like Roman observed, there are _clearly_ two different approaches to things, and while Aurielen and Vmiklos took one approach, Aaron expects another approach. IMOHO, Aaron, since you're right now incharge of the project, pick one Method and lets us live with it and move on to getting pacman out the door, its been waaaay too long in development already i think (though the method you pick does not have to be the one you really like, considering the work vmiklos and co have done, in the end, both methods work, various projects use either). /me silently goes back to lurking under said HugeRock(tm)

On 10/4/06, Essien Ita Essien wrote:

Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

2006/10/4, VMiklos :

<snip>

Come on, guys! Why not just relax and first come to decission about what copyright info style should be in Pacman - like in SDL or like in kernel & MPlayer?

In the first case there is standard copyright info for entire project, that repeats in _every_ file. Example: SuperProjectX. Copyright (C) 1997-2006, SomeCompany.

In the second case every file has its own copyright info. Example main.c: SuperProjectX. Copyright (C) 1997-2006, SomeCompany. some_functions.c: SuperProjectX. Copyright (C) 1997-2006, SomeCompany. SuperProjectX. SomeFunctions. Copyright (C) 1999-2004, good guy. Some megacool feature support - contriubuted by another good guy.

Then if you come to conclusion - there will be no misunderstandings about what to include and in which form. I don't think any of devs are very bothered with copyrights. There just should be standard policy about this.

exactly!

IMOHO... this is a *very* small disctration. I've been lurking here for a while under a huge rock, waiting for activity on pacman-3, and now when Aaron is ready to get things cranking to a release state, we're going to be side tracked by politics? meh! We're way cooler than this I believe.

Like Roman observed, there are _clearly_ two different approaches to things, and while Aurielen and Vmiklos took one approach, Aaron expects another approach.

IMOHO, Aaron, since you're right now incharge of the project, pick one Method and lets us live with it and move on to getting pacman out the door, its been waaaay too long in development already i think (though the method you pick does not have to be the one you really like, considering the work vmiklos and co have done, in the end, both methods work, various projects use either).

+1. I could not say anything better, i make our words mine.

/me silently goes back to lurking under said HugeRock(tm)

/me too :o)

_______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev

I agree with Aaron that Judd is the copyright holder for the pacman project. Even if you forked the code into another project, the Judd Vinet copyright notice would have to remain atop every file. I would suggest something like a "Portions Copyright" line or "contributing authors" line if you are really concerned with getting credit for your work. No rule states that you cannot have multiple parts of a file under different copyrights, however, this is messy and I wouldn't want to deal with it. My $0.02.. On 10/4/06, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On 10/4/06, Douglas Andrade wrote:

...

On 10/4/06, Essien Ita Essien wrote:

...

IMOHO, Aaron, since you're right now incharge of the project, pick one Method and lets us live with it and move on to getting pacman out the door, its been waaaay too long in development already i think (though the method you pick does not have to be the one you really like, considering the work vmiklos and co have done, in the end, both methods work, various projects use either).

+1. I could not say anything better, i make our words mine.

Well, here's the way I see it. As with anything copyrighted, one can hold the copyright without being a direct author of a given chunk of code. This is deemed a "contribution" of code to the original copyright author.

Since 2002 Judd has held, under the GPL, the copyright for pacman, regardless of changes.

I believe it's viable for contributing authors to copyright their work as well. I feel that it's far more direct to copyright the entire program to judd by default (yes, from 2002 as it is based on the original pacman). Sure additional copyright info can be added, but judd should remain in place.

As for the rationale of people commenting on me bringing this up. Regardless of _why_ you use free software, the protections given by the FSF and the GPL are VITAL. As for why this was brought up when development has been delayed so long - I have received a 34 thousand line diff file, of which a large chunk is copyright changes. I doubt anyone would feel comfortable simpl applying to 34 thousand line patch without thinking to _any_ code, let alone code they're supposed to be responsible for. One can claim it's easy to "just fix it", but honestly, it's just tedious and not inherantly easy.

As for the claim that CVS is invalid, I am going to claim that, at this point, it is not. pacman 3 is a "derivative work" based on the original pacman. The copyright from 2002 still holds. I will not be revoking Judd's copyright, as I believe that is improper.

_______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:40:40 +0200 VMiklos wrote:

okay, we need facts. what about alpm.c? i _do_ think it was nowhere in 2002

When I see a copyright in a source file that is part of a the entire source code for an autonomous/whole project, I see it as a copyright representing the WHOLE project, not that individual file. Following that logic, if I write a new source file (eg, db.c or whatever) in 2004, I still add the 2002-2004 (C) to it, since the pacman project itself began in 2002. Approaching this idea from another angle... imagine if all of pacman was in a single .c file. Then it would make perfect sense to keep the copyright from 2002, since that's when the file began? Files are just a way of organizing the code -- the project itself is what I'm considering when I write down those dates. I think some projects have a more structured modularity to them that necessitates a more distributed copyright system. I have reservations about moving copyrights over to something like "The Pacman Team", because then the code is officially governed by a body of people, and a body which has no real rules or structure at this time. What if there was a decision to be made that could only be done so by the copyright holder, and "The Pacman Team" was divided on it? Can an ephemeral collection of people legally own a copyright like this without some sort of offical registration of members? I'm assuming the member list of the pacman-dev ML does not constitute the pacman team. But if you look at the ChangeLog for pacman2 (not even including pacman3) there are a lot of fly-by contributors that could feel put out if they didn't have some rights to their contributed code.

2) see the cvs logs, see the AUTHORS file. if that makes you happy, then feel free to remove me, ask Christian and Aurelien about their lines

The AUTHORS (or better yet, CREDITS) file should be used to list all major contributors to a project. That's there so we don't have to amend the copyright headers of all the source files everytime someone makes a contribution. If we amended the copyright headers, then pacman.c would probably have about 30 names at the top of it.

stop. it was me who updated the copyright lines, this issue has nothing with Christian or any other developer

...

And besides, you talk about "invalid copyrights".... says who? It is completely within legal limits for an author to not be a copyright holder.

Definitely. Some projects require that any patches be submitted with a little email stub that basically says "I give up any rights to this work to the original copyright holder" just to avoid issues like this. The author of the patch is still known, but he/she does not retain copyright rights to it any longer.

...

-COPYRIGHT_HOLDER = Judd Vinet +COPYRIGHT_HOLDER = Yoyodyne, Inc.

feel free to flame me, but this is already checked in by Judd: $ find . -type f |xargs grep 'COPYRIGHT_HOLDER =' ./lib/libalpm/po/Makevars:COPYRIGHT_HOLDER = Judd Vinet ./src/pacman/po/Makevars:COPYRIGHT_HOLDER = Yoyodyne, Inc.

and of course you can see, that's the default, so the story imho is the following: 1) when krix added the files to our tree, he fogot to change the default copyright holder 2) he sent here the patch 3) Judd corrected the copyright line 4) we never noticed he modified the patch we sent him

conclusion: we never changed "Judd Vinet" to "Yoyodyne, Inc."

This kind of stuff doesn't bother me. I'm pretty sure none of you guys work for Yoyodyne, Inc. :)

yes, that's strange. i could say don't talk about this at all, because it's Judd and my business, definitely not your one

maybe you don't see, but i still would like to be constructive. let's try to turn this endless flame thread to some positive discussion and let's try to find out a solution

Thank you, VMiklos. Constructive is good. Here are my thoughts -- all in all, I would like to retain the copyright to pacman. I worked hard on it for a number of years and I think I deserve it. With that said, people like you, Aaron, Christian, and Aurelien certainly deserve credit for large portions of the code and what it can do today. This is what I want the AUTHORS file to say, and prominently. We can also reference it on the pacman website and in the README file. It is not my intention to hide the fact that I had help with the project, because I did have a lot of help. But if the day comes where a big decisions needs to be made that only the copyright holder can make, I wouldn't want to be bogged down by a game of who-wrote-what -- I think that could tear the project apart.

3) if you think the copyright lines in the cvs are valid, then please have a look at the kernel's source, there is zero "copyright 1991-2006 Linus Torvalds" line

Again, I think the lack of Linus' name on some files is due to the crazy modularity of the kernel. The core kernel itself is still Linus' baby, and as benevolent dictator, he retains the right to make decisions governing it. If he decides to sell the code to Microsoft, then it may be that the ipw2200 module cannot go with it. But the majority of the code is under his control.

4) in other words, i've sent here a patch to modify those lines, you said the patch is not ok, then feel free to improve it. and of course you have the right to reject the patch, but please consider the ideas mentioned above before doing so

Let me take this opportunity to thank you, Christian, and the other developers at Frugalware for your hard work on pacman. While we are often too busy to process your changes, we do appreciate them. I think pacman will grow to be much more powerful now that two strong distributions are using it. Look out rpm and deb/apt-get. :) - J

2006/10/4, Judd Vinet :

When I see a copyright in a source file that is part of a the entire source code for an autonomous/whole project, I see it as a copyright representing the WHOLE project, not that individual file. Following that logic, if I write a new source file (eg, db.c or whatever) in 2004, I still add the 2002-2004 (C) to it, since the pacman project itself began in 2002.

Approaching this idea from another angle... imagine if all of pacman was in a single .c file. Then it would make perfect sense to keep the copyright from 2002, since that's when the file began? Files are just a way of organizing the code -- the project itself is what I'm considering when I write down those dates.

The AUTHORS (or better yet, CREDITS) file should be used to list all major contributors to a project. That's there so we don't have to amend the copyright headers of all the source files everytime someone makes a contribution. If we amended the copyright headers, then pacman.c would probably have about 30 names at the top of it.

...

...

And besides, you talk about "invalid copyrights".... says who? It is completely within legal limits for an author to not be a copyright holder.

Definitely. Some projects require that any patches be submitted with a little email stub that basically says "I give up any rights to this work to the original copyright holder" just to avoid issues like this. The author of the patch is still known, but he/she does not retain copyright rights to it any longer.

Here are my thoughts -- all in all, I would like to retain the copyright to pacman. I worked hard on it for a number of years and I think I deserve it. With that said, people like you, Aaron, Christian, and Aurelien certainly deserve credit for large portions of the code and what it can do today. This is what I want the AUTHORS file to say, and prominently. We can also reference it on the pacman website and in the README file. It is not my intention to hide the fact that I had help with the project, because I did have a lot of help.

But if the day comes where a big decisions needs to be made that only the copyright holder can make, I wouldn't want to be bogged down by a game of who-wrote-what -- I think that could tear the project apart.

Well said, Judd. Authorship and copyright holding are different things. I think most (at least >50%) OSS projects use this aproach to solve copyright issues. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:12:27AM -0400, Robert Howard wrote:

Even if you forked the code into another project

which is not the situation, as you all know udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:22:34AM -0700, Judd Vinet wrote:

Here are my thoughts -- all in all, I would like to retain the copyright to pacman. I worked hard on it for a number of years and I think I deserve it. With that said, people like you, Aaron, Christian, and Aurelien certainly deserve credit for large portions of the code and what it can do today. This is what I want the AUTHORS file to say, and prominently. We can also reference it on the pacman website and in the README file. It is not my intention to hide the fact that I had help with the project, because I did have a lot of help.

okay, so you would like to have the same header for each file and your copyright from 2002 to 2006. what about the follwong: /* foo.c - This file is part of Pacman, see the COPYRIGHT file for more * information */ then all the names could be listed there

But if the day comes where a big decisions needs to be made that only the copyright holder can make, I wouldn't want to be bogged down by a game of who-wrote-what -- I think that could tear the project apart.

if there are several authors, then the license can be changed to an other one in case all the copyright holders agree about the change, which is almost impossible. currently (yes, of course i really hope this will never happen :) ) if you go crazy and change the license, then you can do it, so the license of my own code is not guarantated. i hope you can see the problem

Again, I think the lack of Linus' name on some files is due to the crazy modularity of the kernel.

hopefully we will have backends other than 'files' and then we'll have crazy modules, too :)

Let me take this opportunity to thank you, Christian, and the other developers at Frugalware for your hard work on pacman.

i'm happy to contribute :) so, i don't plan to revert the copyright updates in our tree, but in case something is changed in the cvs (somehow we're listed as copyright holders) then of course i'll pull that change and drop our copyright fixes. and again, this whole "copyright thingy" from my part is about to be able to control under what license is my code distributed, not about hurting you in any way udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 01:50:49AM +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

Or you just don't want that somebody can use your code under different license, not approved by you?

exactly. udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

On 10/4/06, VMiklos wrote:

so, i don't plan to revert the copyright updates in our tree, but in case something is changed in the cvs (somehow we're listed as copyright holders) then of course i'll pull that change and drop our copyright fixes. and again, this whole "copyright thingy" from my part is about to be able to control under what license is my code distributed, not about hurting you in any way

This is illegal. This is not about licenses. This is about copyright, Everything here is under the GPL. Let's review the "human readable" GPL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/ I'll quote a sentence: You must conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy distributed an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty and keep intact all the notices that refer to this License You have not done this, and have now, on a public mailing list, refused to comply with the GPL. Is this an action you sure you want to take?

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 07:47:17PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On 10/4/06, VMiklos wrote:

...

so, i don't plan to revert the copyright updates in our tree, but in case something is changed in the cvs (somehow we're listed as copyright holders) then of course i'll pull that change and drop our copyright fixes. and again, this whole "copyright thingy" from my part is about to be able to control under what license is my code distributed, not about hurting you in any way

This is illegal. This is not about licenses.

sure, this is not about licenses. but then why do you quote the gpl?

You have not done this, and have now, on a public mailing list, refused to comply with the GPL. Is this an action you sure you want to take?

of course not. i would like to see the copyrights fixed in the cvs, as i stated several times previously. at the moment when you contribute to pacman you don't have to say "the copyright holder of my code will be Judd" and i never said so. possible solutions: 1) let every contributor sign such a document 2) respect other's copyrights and _mention_ them oh, and our pacman tree was always public from the begining (pacman2's cvs tree is still not public), so the copyright update was never a secret (also the darcs logs are on a public mailing list) udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 08:44:26PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

I will go through and determine exactly which files are patched by you, and apply the authors name to the copyright in CVS.

thanks! as soon as you have done this, i'll pull all the headers from cvs and drop our own

This will waste my time, sure. If you guys would like, you can feel free to waive your rights on existing code in CVS, giving copyright ownership to Judd, though I doubt you'd do that.

is it possible to share the copyright ownership? when i first contributed to OpenOffice.org, i had to sign the jca: http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf quoting http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#jcaa: "Under the Joint Copyright Assignment, both Sun and the contributor retain full rights to use, modify, and redistribute the copyrighted work." this is a bit better: Judd has still the full copyright (as he wished) but if i would like to re-use my own code in some other projects, then i can do using the license i wish. ie.: if i want to contribute our regex-search function to a bsd-licensed project, it won't be a problem

From now on, all patches must explicitly waive the author's copyright claim in order to be accepted into pacman.

okay, thanks for clarifying this. if you think this is agood idea, then mention this in a COPYRIGHT file (or something like that) in the cvs udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

Am I correct to assume that contributors only retain rights to their contributed code, not the code of the entire project under which the copyright applies? So, if someone wanted they could roll their code into another product, but not the whole code of pacman? On 10/5/06, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On 10/5/06, VMiklos wrote:

...

is it possible to share the copyright ownership? when i first contributed to OpenOffice.org, i had to sign the jca:

http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf

quoting http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#jcaa:

"Under the Joint Copyright Assignment, both Sun and the contributor retain full rights to use, modify, and redistribute the copyrighted work."

This is interesting. This gives both parties full rights to the source in question, if I'm not mistaken. That is, Judd still has full rights as if he were sole copyright holder, as does a contributor on the code he contributed. Is this a correct interpretation?

_______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:47:57PM -0400, Robert Howard wrote:

Am I correct to assume that contributors only retain rights to their contributed code, not the code of the entire project under which the copyright applies? So, if someone wanted they could roll their code into another product, but not the whole code of pacman?

i think you are correct udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:09:06 -0700 Judd Vinet wrote:

I'll get your back when I can, Aaron. I've merged most of the libarchive stuff in, but it's not committed yet. For some reason, the static linking fails. Dynamic one works fine. I tested this with FW's pacman and I had the same error, so it's likely something on my system, not in the pacman build setup.

If you haven't found the problem here yet it's libtool-slay. Use ABS to rebuild libarchive without removing libarchive.la and pacman3 will build fine :-) I've started to play around with pacman myself and while I'm no expert with C - in fact I'm still learning, if I make any changes that I feel others can benefit from I'll post them here. Nice to see development picking up again! - cs-cam

On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 05:13:28PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

Yeah, I noticed that too - I hate libtool and autotools and all that messy complexity... but what the hell?

Maybe later I'll remake the Makefiles by hand (far easier that way IMO), but not now

autoconf + pure Makefiles are good :) using autoconf for checking for libarchive, gettext, etc etc is handy. _imho_ :) udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org