Follow-up Comment #27, sr #110199 (project administration):
Svante: perhaps there's a misunderstanding due to the common contribution
process.
You wrote: "I have now added Copyright and License information to all files
where it is needed."
The thing is: it's needed everywhere.
You also wrote: "If a patch for example does not
change the copyright and license information does not have to change at all.
Or do you mean the files I created?"
Even if a patch does not change the copyright/licence of the file it is
supposed to be applied on, there *is* copyright and licence information to be
given on the *patch* itself.
Usually when contributing to a project, people don't bother expliciting under
which licence the patch is provided under, and the assumption is that it's
under the licence of the file being patched.
But here you can't go that way, since the patch could remain for some time in
this proposed repo, and thus effectively living its own live, independently
from what happens to the file that it's supposed to patch.
So I guess there is a misunderstanding on *what* has to be maintained rather
than a question of commitment.
Put another way: yes, add a licence notice on each patch file (basically the
licence of the file being patched, as that licence was at the time when the
patch was created, since it is at that time that the creator of the patch read
and agreed the licence under which that file was). And add a copyright notice
on each patch file as well, to remember who created the patch and thus holds
copyright on the patch (which will be needed anyway when trying to merge the
patch upstream).
Note: yes, for instance Debian does not usually keep a licence note in the
patch queues that it maintains, but the GNU standards are higher than this.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110199>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/
