[pacman-dev] Time for changes

[Robert Howard]

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 <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/4/06, Douglas Andrade <dsandrade at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/4/06, Essien Ita Essien <essiene at datavibe.net> 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 at archlinux.org
> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/attachments/20061004/4c2900fd/attachment.htm>