On Sunday 23 October 2011 20:01:33 Livnat Peer wrote:
On 10/23/2011 07:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 08:37 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>> On 10/22/2011 01:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>>> I personally rather dropping the [name of copyright owner] I believe
>>> that's why we have history in the source control.
>> That is also fine.
>> Note that if a file is brought to the project it is considered bad form
>> to strip the copyright notice, so over time we will get a collection of
>> files with notices and without over time if code is re-used from other
>> OSS projects.
> Are we talking about dropping the copyright line or an authors line?
> For instance:
> * Copyright International Business Machines, 2011
> * Authors:
> * Anthony Liguori <aliguori(a)us.ibm.com>
> Having a person's name in the file is useful in terms of asking
> questions. Yes, git exists but not everything deals with git trees.
> If we're talking about stripping the Copyright line, that's not going to
> be allowed some corporate legal departments. People copy files between
> projects so preserving the copyright notice is pretty important.
> Anthony Liguori
I was referring to the author.
One person is adding the file and many others are changing it. Many
times (after a while) the file has little to do with the original file
that was added.
So for questions about the file you usually need to deal with the info
from the source control.
WRT to omitting the person name (from past experience...),
After a year or so people change positions / work places, and this
becomes simply an old memory, with the relevant person not longer
available to answer questions, so this is missing the point.
"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind" --Bob Dylan, Blowin' in the