NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Linux kernel really doesn't have the problem... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard Linus said no to GPL3 and the kernel.
Well, my exact phrasing was "The Linux kernel now faces a similar problem if it would wish to adopt a different licence than the GPL version 2 (and no later version)." What I meant was that if at any given time, they would prefer to use a different licence, not necessarily the GPLv3, they would need to ask permission from all the copyright holders, or re-write their code.
I know of several projects that have changed licensing this way: Mozilla which converted from the MPL to a triple MPL/LGPL/GPL lice
Re: (Score:1)
Note that the figure of 905 authors probably does not derive from a full blame analysis, in which case it is quite likely that no code remains from a number of minor contributors, which would make the task somewhat less monumental than that number might suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a linewise "blame"/"annotate" feature is not an accurate way to determine ownership. For example, let's say I added a huge patch to the perldoc pods adding several sections, and lots of text. My patch as applied.
Afterwards, someone noticed that all my lines had trailing whitespace, and submitted a patch to remove them. This patch was submitted, and all of my added lines are now marked as his changed lines. As a result, the line-wise blame command will claim I'm not a contributor, while in fact I
Re:Linux kernel really doesn't have the problem... (Score:1)
You are arguing about specific trees, whereas I am talking about the forest: that it is quite likely that the number of contributors who can actually claim copyright today is probably not quite as high as a thousand people.
Reply to This
Parent