>>>>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:05:47 -0500, Matt Sisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anthony Peacock wrote:
>> "AUTHOR
>> Anthony Peacock, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (After July 2000)
>> Stacy Lacy (original author)
>>
>> COPYRIGHT
>> Portions Copyright (c) 1998 Anthony Peacock, CHIME.
>> Copyright (c) 1997 Stacy Lacy (original author).
>>
>> This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> modify it under the same terms as Perl itself."
> Usually what I see is more brief...list both names in the authorship
> section, and then break the dates out in the copyright (what you have is
> fine, though, I don't think there are official rules). Like this:
> AUTHORS
> Anthony Peacock, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Stacy Lacy (original author)
> COPYRIGHT
> Copyright (c) 1998-2000 Anthony Peacock, CHIME.
> Copyright (c) 1997 Stacy Lacy
> This library is free software...
In the usual case you have the author's explicit consent, but even
with Stacy's cited posting we do not have explicit consent here. So
I'd say caution is called for. There's an long standing tradition of
(unjustified) offended authors:-(
Anyway, Stacy's posting convinced me that I should not wait until
Saturday and I changed authorship now.
As I've never heard about official rules for that case, we have to
invent our own. I'd suggest Matt's proposal looks perfect except for
that it's hiding the story. If you added a HISTORY section in which
you offered a single sentence, something like you "forged" the project
(or whatever is the appropriate term) because the original author
could not be reached, that would be ideal (IMHO!). The art here is to
make enough words and not too many words at the same time.
> It's nice to see an orphaned piece of code find a home!
Very true! Thanks Anthony!
--
andreas
