[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: question : authors names in code

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:16:08PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Note that this is about license statements.  This is not true for
> copyright statement (notices about who owns the copyright).  These
> should never be removed.  Jens is correct that it is legally possible to
> move them elsewhere, but in practice it is IMO much better to leave them
> in the file.  The reason, as noted by others, is that it is harder to
> "lose" the information when forking the project, or copying files from
> it.

It simplifies also requesting the copyright owners for license changes for
individual files only ... There is no need to contact all 100 people
listed in CREDITS if only one person has the copyright on files I care
> Also, in case of GPL'd code, clause 2a (GPL-2) says that if you modify
> files
> 	You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> 	stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> And in clause 5a (GPL-3):
> 	The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
> 	it, and giving a relevant date.

Oops, I didn't know this. I'm sure there are many patches in our
repository which don't add such a statement.

I also considered it bad style to add myself in files if I did only minor
stuff in it.

So every GPL 2 licensed file has to contain at least the copyright
notice of the last editor (the last editor is allowed to remove all
previous ones). If such a note is missing the file cannot be licensed
under GPL 2!? Similarly if the work is licensed under "GPL 2 or later"
and does not contain such a notice it is indeed "GPL 3 or later"
(except if the changes happened before the code was relicensed to GPL)???

> This means that for GPL-2, you need to add your own name to the file
> itself.  GPL-3 allows the "CREDITS" version because it only specifies
> that it must be somewhere in the work.  However, IMO in the file itself
> is still the best option.


Reply to: