Thanks

[Dennis Veatch]

On Sunday 22 May 2005 07:29 am, Jasper Huijsmans wrote:
> elaine wrote:
> >Zbiggy, ok a few thoughts on your requests/comments
> >
> >Take this as a personal veiw, I'm not an active dev and haven't
> >been in more than a year.
> >
> >First, it is questionable whether modules even qualify as copyrighted
> >works. Copyright specifically excludes 'listings of ingredients or
> >contents'. That is a pretty good description of most modules.
>
> This was one of my first thoughts as well. I don't think individual
> modules are copyrightable (is that a word?), except, as you say, complex
> build scripts.
>
> How about adding a comment to contributed modules:
>
> # contributed by: name <email>
> # date: ...
>
> A contributor can add copyright statements to relevant build scripts in
> the same manner, as is done for any kind of source code.
>
> # Copyright 2005 name <email>
> # this fancy build script is licenced under the GNU GPL version 2
>
> Or something to that effect,
>
>     Jasper
> _______________________________________________


I think everyone has some valid points. For the most part, thanks to the Lunar 
devs the modules are not that complicated and there are many non-Lunar 
scripts floating around Linux bearing no copyright info at all. So I would 
have to lean towards them not being so or needing such. It would be a nice 
touch to acknowledge such contributions but as Elaine pointed out an awful 
lot of work to maintain. It also sounds like a lot of work to massage 
subversion into allowing the kind of access needed to prevent others from 
stopming on someone else's module. I don't think promises not to do so are 
sufficient.

For me such acknowledgement doesn't really matterr. The reason is I already 
have that acknowledgement. It comes from submitting a module via a bug 
report, the mail list or the forums and that's sufficient for me. Not that 
it's a big deal.

OTOH it would inflate my pride a little bit to see a reference to me in a 
module :) Doh!