On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 00:34, Travis Crump wrote: > I would say that when someone submits a patch, they should expect that > just the patch is going to be applied. If they want attribution then > the submitted patch should take care of it[ie patch the copyright > statement at the top of the file to include their name or add their name > in a comment to the new code]. Failure to do so implicitly states that > they agree with the present license of the code and don't want to be > acknowledged. Though, of course, that is just my un-informed opinion. There is a difference between not wanting to be acknowledged, not minding being acknowledged, wanting to be acknowledged, claiming your patch is sufficently nontrivial to warrant your copyright on the work, and actually claiming a copyright on it. I think for most purposes we can combine the last two, and ignore the first one unless the patch author specifically requests otherwise. I think by far the safest, and nicest, thing to do is acknowledge the contributor in the changelog, accept any patches to the copyright notice(s) they have made (unless the change really is trivial), and update the copyright notice later if the patch author desires. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part