Patch for the repaint issue in the collection dialog

[Jeff Mitchell]

Seb Ruiz wrote:
>>>> Is this small parch worth having to deal with potential licensing
>>>> issues, since he adds his name to the copyright?  IMHO it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> --Jeff
>>> Worst reason to reject a patch ever.

I didn't say we should reject it.  I suggested we should possibly ask
him to remove the copyright declaration, and was asking for comments.

>>> And adding your name doesn't create the licensing issue. Adding
>>> copyrightable code gives you a copyright whether you list your name or
>>> not.

Does it?  This doesn't make much sense from the perspective of the rule
of thumb we've always used, and which Seb stated:

> General rule of thumb that we use with Amarok code is that a copyright
> line gets added if you feel that a significant amount of code has been
> written/changed. The patch author's name gets attributed in the
> Changelog and commit message also. Personally, I don't think that Adam
> has written enough game changing code in there to attribute a
> copyright line, but I wouldn't really mind either way.

Right, that's the way I've always known it to be done in Amarok -- hence
my reason for asking this question.  Even among us more long-term devs,
we don't tend to put our names up top unless we've modified a file in
significant ways, not if we've just done some minor bugfixing etc.  I
don't consider Adam's contribution significant, but I also don't really
mind either way.

My understanding was that if you want to relicense a file, you have to
get the okay of all of the named copyright holders at the top of the
file (which is my understanding of what KDE did when trying to relicense
everything via the F.L.A.).  Hence small patches where we thank people
is not an issue, but we have to be more careful when copyrights get
added in file headers.

> Let's be pragmatic here: Adam probably thought he was just following
> standards. I don't think he'd mind (most people don't) if we drop the
> copyright line.

Sure.

Again, I don't mind either way, I was just forwarding this for
discussion, since I didn't want to either accept it or ask him to change
it without getting other peoples' opinion.

--Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20090330/c8e26c30/attachment.sig