Thread: [Perlunit-devel] update and copyrights question
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
mca1001
Menu
▾
▴
perlunit-devel
|
From: Adam S. <ad...@sp...> - 2001-11-27 14:50:48
|
OK, a few more commits gone/going in. The only one of real interest so far is that I renamed Test::Unit to Test::Unit::Procedural, as we already planned. Next up (today with luck) is tackling the 3 class design-related issues I mentioned in my last post. I'm not going to do anything which breaks existing API though, just things which improve it. Another cosmetic issue I'd like to address is a bit delicate. We currently have copyrights, licenses, and out of date author attributions in pretty much every file in the distribution. This is messy, and a pain to maintain. What I would like to see is moving of all the copyrights and credits into one or two files (COPYING or LICENSE or AUTHORS, say), and then to change the licensing/credit bits and pieces in all the other files into something which refers to that one file, and also states that none of the files should be distributed separately, only as an entire package, thereby preventing the copyright-containing file from being disassociated from the others. However, I suspect we may need to ask permission from individuals to do this, since it would mean reassigning the copyrights of various files. For example, currently TestSuite.pm is (c) Christian, but TestLoader.pm is (c) Brian Ewins. What I'm suggesting would presumably make both files copyrighted by the entire group of PerlUnit developers past and present. However, IANAL and I've never really thought before about how projects' collective copyrights work. Or maybe it's simpler to keep the existing copyrights, but move all the credits into one file. Then the copyrights can stay as is, and we only have one place where we need add credits when people send in patches or commit contributions. What do you all think? |
|
From: Matthew A. <mc...@us...> - 2001-11-27 15:14:31
|
(Yes, I'm still here .. sorry I've been so quiet, I'm mostly using JUnit instead, at the moment!) On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:49:39PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote: > Another cosmetic issue I'd like to address is a bit delicate. We > currently have copyrights, licenses, and out of date author > attributions in pretty much every file in the distribution. > [...] > What do you all think? I agree entirely. I haven't contributed very much of course, but I'm happy to be moved out to a credits file. 9-) Surely the main thing is that the respective authors maintain their copyright over & credit for the project? In which case, having each individual file point at the credits/licence and then putting a decent history in that file should do the trick? IANAL... Your point though, is (?) that it's the delicacy of refactoring the credits which is the problem, not the legality. If the new file structure serves the same legal purpose then surely you're only obliged to ask each author out of politeness? Then if you don't get a reply after a few weeks, the person probably doesn't care? Matthew #8-) |
|
From: Adam S. <ad...@sp...> - 2001-11-27 16:59:01
|
Matthew Astley (mc...@us...) wrote: > (Yes, I'm still here .. sorry I've been so quiet, I'm mostly using > JUnit instead, at the moment!) Traitor! ;-) > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:49:39PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote: > Surely the main thing is that the respective authors maintain their > copyright over & credit for the project? In which case, having each > individual file point at the credits/licence and then putting a decent > history in that file should do the trick? IANAL... Well yes, I'm sure that's the main thing as far as anyone is concerned. However... > Your point though, is (?) that it's the delicacy of refactoring the > credits which is the problem, not the legality. No, it's the legality I was worried about, since the refactoring is still giving everyone the credit they deserve. > If the new file structure serves the same legal purpose then surely > you're only obliged to ask each author out of politeness? That's the thing, I'm not sure it does, because it would in effect take a file copyrighted by person A and make it copyrighted by persons A, B, C ... I can't imagine anyone caring, but it's probably worth thinking about anyway. |
|
From: Matthew A. <mc...@us...> - 2001-11-27 17:36:26
|
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:58:51PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote: > Matthew Astley (mc...@us...) wrote: > > (Yes, I'm still here .. sorry I've been so quiet, I'm mostly using > > JUnit instead, at the moment!) > > Traitor! ;-) *cower* I'm sorry, I didn't have time to port PerlUnit to Java! 9-) > > Your point though, is (?) that it's the delicacy of refactoring the > > credits which is the problem, not the legality. > > No, it's the legality I was worried about, since the refactoring is > still giving everyone the credit they deserve. Digressing slightly, it occurred to me we should perhaps have a perldoc file, Test::Unit::Credits, or something? perldoc it > CREDITS at tarball time? > > If the new file structure serves the same legal purpose then surely > > you're only obliged to ask each author out of politeness? > > That's the thing, I'm not sure it does, because it would in effect > take a file copyrighted by person A and make it copyrighted by persons > A, B, C ... I can't imagine anyone caring, but it's probably worth > thinking about anyway. Hmm. Well, presumably most people fall into one of two categories, - did enough stuff to everything to get credit for the whole - did few enough enumerable jobs that specific credit won't take too much space What's the current favourite practice for assigning copyright? Split it into lots of pieces so the Bad People can't wrestle it from an individual, or consolidate so you can easily hand it over to the Good People? Hmm, we're going to end up in a licence-size contest aren't we? 8-( Am I misguided in thinking that assigning credit for parts of the project is equivalent to assigning (joint) copyright ownership for those parts? Matthew #8-) |
|
From: Adam S. <ad...@sp...> - 2001-11-27 17:59:16
|
Matthew Astley (mc...@us...) wrote: > > > Your point though, is (?) that it's the delicacy of refactoring the > > > credits which is the problem, not the legality. > > > > No, it's the legality I was worried about, since the refactoring is > > still giving everyone the credit they deserve. > > Digressing slightly, it occurred to me we should perhaps have a > perldoc file, Test::Unit::Credits, or something? perldoc it > CREDITS > at tarball time? Could do, I'd prefer to keep it as text though, because that seems to be the CPAN convention. |
|
From: Piers C. <pdc...@bo...> - 2001-11-27 19:30:32
|
Adam Spiers <ad...@sp...> writes:
> OK, a few more commits gone/going in. The only one of real interest
> so far is that I renamed Test::Unit to Test::Unit::Procedural, as we
> already planned.
>
> Next up (today with luck) is tackling the 3 class design-related
> issues I mentioned in my last post. I'm not going to do anything
> which breaks existing API though, just things which improve it.
>
> Another cosmetic issue I'd like to address is a bit delicate. We
> currently have copyrights, licenses, and out of date author
> attributions in pretty much every file in the distribution. This is
> messy, and a pain to maintain. What I would like to see is moving of
> all the copyrights and credits into one or two files (COPYING or
> LICENSE or AUTHORS, say), and then to change the licensing/credit bits
> and pieces in all the other files into something which refers to that
> one file, and also states that none of the files should be distributed
> separately, only as an entire package, thereby preventing the
> copyright-containing file from being disassociated from the others.
> However, I suspect we may need to ask permission from individuals to
> do this, since it would mean reassigning the copyrights of various
> files. For example, currently TestSuite.pm is (c) Christian, but
> TestLoader.pm is (c) Brian Ewins. What I'm suggesting would
> presumably make both files copyrighted by the entire group of PerlUnit
> developers past and present. However, IANAL and I've never really
> thought before about how projects' collective copyrights work.
I like the idea of keeping everything copyright the PerlUnit Dev Team
(or whatever), but I do think we need to get Christian and Brian's
consent.
> Or maybe it's simpler to keep the existing copyrights, but move all
> the credits into one file. Then the copyrights can stay as is, and we
> only have one place where we need add credits when people send in
> patches or commit contributions.
I believe Perl itself is copyright Larry as the original author (but
the copyright date keeps extending) and then then have an AUTHORS file
for everyone who's ever submitted a patch.
I like this approach. Assuming we get the assignment from Christian
and Brian, I assume we could do:
Copyright (c) 199X-2001 Christian Lemburg and Brian Ewins
Modifications Copyright 2001-X The PerlUnit Dev Team.
Any new files would be
Copyright (c) 2000- The PerlUnit Dev Team.
Not sure how this stacks up legally though.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
|
|
From: <le...@ai...> - 2001-11-28 09:15:53
|
Piers Cawley <pdc...@bo...> writes: > Adam Spiers <ad...@sp...> writes: > > > OK, a few more commits gone/going in. The only one of real interest > > so far is that I renamed Test::Unit to Test::Unit::Procedural, as we > > already planned. > > > > Next up (today with luck) is tackling the 3 class design-related > > issues I mentioned in my last post. I'm not going to do anything > > which breaks existing API though, just things which improve it. > > > > Another cosmetic issue I'd like to address is a bit delicate. We > > currently have copyrights, licenses, and out of date author > > attributions in pretty much every file in the distribution. This is > > messy, and a pain to maintain. What I would like to see is moving of > > all the copyrights and credits into one or two files (COPYING or > > LICENSE or AUTHORS, say), and then to change the licensing/credit bits > > and pieces in all the other files into something which refers to that > > one file, and also states that none of the files should be distributed > > separately, only as an entire package, thereby preventing the > > copyright-containing file from being disassociated from the others. > > However, I suspect we may need to ask permission from individuals to > > do this, since it would mean reassigning the copyrights of various > > files. For example, currently TestSuite.pm is (c) Christian, but > > TestLoader.pm is (c) Brian Ewins. What I'm suggesting would > > presumably make both files copyrighted by the entire group of PerlUnit > > developers past and present. However, IANAL and I've never really > > thought before about how projects' collective copyrights work. > > I like the idea of keeping everything copyright the PerlUnit Dev Team > (or whatever), but I do think we need to get Christian and Brian's > consent. I give my consent entirely to the idea of making everything copyright the PerlUnit Dev Team. > > > Or maybe it's simpler to keep the existing copyrights, but move all > > the credits into one file. Then the copyrights can stay as is, and we > > only have one place where we need add credits when people send in > > patches or commit contributions. > > I believe Perl itself is copyright Larry as the original author (but > the copyright date keeps extending) and then then have an AUTHORS file > for everyone who's ever submitted a patch. > > I like this approach. Assuming we get the assignment from Christian > and Brian, I assume we could do: > > Copyright (c) 199X-2001 Christian Lemburg and Brian Ewins > Modifications Copyright 2001-X The PerlUnit Dev Team. > Also totally OK by me. > Any new files would be > > Copyright (c) 2000- The PerlUnit Dev Team. > > Not sure how this stacks up legally though. I really don't know about the legal status of a sourceforge group. But surely this issue has been tackled before. I'd vote for a look at some major sourceforge group efforts, and see what they do. The Perl approach mentioned above also has its merits, mainly that the copyright is (1) attributable to a single defined legal person and (2) still the work is attributed to the whole of the persons that have contributed. For a pragmatic short term solution, this might be the way to go. Christian > > -- > Piers > > "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in > possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." > -- Jane Austen? > > _______________________________________________ > Perlunit-devel mailing list > Per...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perlunit-devel |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X