From: Graham P. <g.p...@el...> - 2009-12-12 09:43:42
|
I'm starting to prepare the glasgow-pitchtracker-2009 branch for merging, so I'm modifying all the new source files to match the existing format and style. Most of this is obvious, but I'm wondering what to do about the copyright notices. Should I change them all to say "Copyright 2000-2009 the Rosegarden development team" and send a patch for http://rosegardenmusic.com/resources/authors/ (which is what the AUTHORS file says to look at) ? Or should I leave the copyright notices as being owned by the various people at the Center for Music Technology ? (listing their specific names, not CMT) Cheers, - Graham |
From: Julie S <msj...@ya...> - 2009-12-12 14:41:53
|
Dear Graham, You wrote: > Should I change them all to say > "Copyright 2000-2009 the Rosegarden development team" and > send a patch for http://rosegardenmusic.com/resources/authors/ > (which is what the AUTHORS file says to look at) > ? Or should I leave the copyright notices > as being owned by the various people at the Center for > Music Technology ? (listing their specific names, not > CMT) That is a good question. I know we debated the same thing as we revamped out copyright information. We have several people listed that were no longer contributed, could not be contacted, etc. and we felt that it was easier to use the blanket terminology. The people we could contact all agreed to the change. For our sanity sake when we do updates, we would like a consistent copyright. But I'm not certain that this is 100% uniform in Thorn. Michael and Chris C will know better than me. I see the notice in the pitch detector copyright as: pitchtracker.h ------------------- email : D.M...@el... website : http://cmt.gla.ac.uk copyright : (C) 2004 by D.McGilvray & CMT I really don't know our position on this. But I thought I'd at least try to address a bit of the rational behind the change. Sincerely, Julie S. |
From: Dr N. B. <n.j...@el...> - 2009-12-12 17:19:03
|
On Saturday 12 Dec 2009 14:41:41 Julie S wrote: > I see the notice in the pitch detector copyright as: > pitchtracker.h > ------------------- > email : D.M...@el... > website : http://cmt.gla.ac.uk > copyright : (C) 2004 by D.McGilvray & CMT > > I really don't know our position on this. But I thought I'd at least try > to address a bit of the rational behind the change. > > Sincerely, > Julie S. That would work, although a better place to direct it is via the n-ism site now. The Doug went to work at the Caledonian University for a while, then fled to Argentina. He still has his n-ism email address and web page though. I also think of that as being the technical, rather than the political, home of Glasgow CMT. Nick/. |
From: D. M. M. <mic...@ro...> - 2009-12-12 15:57:51
|
On Saturday 12 December 2009, Graham Percival wrote: > I'm starting to prepare the glasgow-pitchtracker-2009 branch for merging, > so I'm modifying all the new source files to match the existing format and > style. When are you planning to merge? If you intend to do this soon, I need to scramble to figure out a plan for how I'm going to juggle all the changes we can't release until after February. > Most of this is obvious, but I'm wondering what to do about the copyright > notices. Should I change them all to say "Copyright 2000-2009 the > Rosegarden development team" and send a patch for > http://rosegardenmusic.com/resources/authors/ (which is what the AUTHORS > file says to look at) ? Or should I leave the copyright notices as being > owned by the various people at the Center for Music Technology ? > (listing their specific names, not CMT) Using the same boilerplate copyright notice everywhere is the most convenient approach, if that is acceptable to your guys. We have some files that have an additional "This file copyright [blah]" under the boilerplate, and for the bits where [blah] was me or someone I knew well, I changed that to \author notes in the Doxygen comments in the class headers instead. I can't dictate terms on how to reassign copyright, but if I get to pick, I'd vote for something like: \author Douglas McGilvray, Centre for Music Technology, blah Add as many as you deem appropriate. Either way, yes, add them to the authors page. The source is in a module in SVN called "website," or you can just send a patch and I'll deal with it. -- D. Michael McIntyre |
From: Graham P. <g.p...@el...> - 2009-12-13 14:00:32
Attachments:
authors-index.patch
|
Michael wrote: >On Saturday 12 December 2009, Graham Percival wrote: > >> I'm starting to prepare the glasgow-pitchtracker-2009 branch for merging, >> so I'm modifying all the new source files to match the existing format and >> style. > >When are you planning to merge? Hmm... in 8 hours or so? Actually, I might as well wait for Nick's work, so call it 24-30 hours from now (if he's on time). And I wouldn't just merge stuff; I'll ask for review here first. But I'm basically finished my work. I need a few more hours to finish matching your code style, but that's it. >> Most of this is obvious, but I'm wondering what to do about the copyright >> notices. > >Using the same boilerplate copyright notice everywhere is the most convenient >approach, ... I changed that to \author >notes in the Doxygen comments in the class headers instead. Ok, will do. > Either way, yes, add them to the authors page. The source is in a module in > SVN called "website," or you can just send a patch and I'll deal with it. Attached. I don't think the pitch tracker is sufficiently large to warrant an entry to the main story. :) Cheers, - Graham |
From: Nick B. <n.j...@el...> - 2009-12-15 15:24:57
|
On Sunday 13 Dec 2009 13:59:30 Graham Percival wrote: > Attached. I don't think the pitch tracker is sufficiently large to warrant > an entry to the main story. :) Agreed. We'll shout about to the people who need to know. Nick/. |
From: Dr N. B. <n.j...@el...> - 2009-12-12 17:53:16
|
Congratulations on that! I will have the patch for the config dialogue some time Monday. Suppose I should send that to you, yes? N/. On Saturday 12 Dec 2009 09:42:40 Graham Percival wrote: > I'm starting to prepare the glasgow-pitchtracker-2009 branch for merging, > so I'm modifying all the new source files to match the existing format and > style. > > Most of this is obvious, but I'm wondering what to do about the copyright > notices. Should I change them all to say "Copyright 2000-2009 the > Rosegarden development team" and send a patch for > http://rosegardenmusic.com/resources/authors/ (which is what the AUTHORS > file says to look at) ? Or should I leave the copyright notices as being > owned by the various people at the Center for Music Technology ? (listing > their specific names, not CMT) > > Cheers, > - Graham > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- Return on Information: > Google Enterprise Search pays you back > Get the facts. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Rosegarden-devel mailing list > Ros...@li... - use the link below to unsubscribe > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel |
From: Dr N. B. <n.j...@el...> - 2009-12-12 18:14:48
|
On Saturday 12 Dec 2009 17:52:53 Dr Nicholas Bailey wrote: > Congratulations on that! I will have the patch for the config dialogue some > time Monday. Suppose I should send that to you, yes? > > N/. Sorry, that was for Graham Percival, not the list!! |