This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: [ECOS] Re: eCosCentric copyright hold in headers
- From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- To: Andrew Lunn <andrew at lunn dot ch>
- Cc: Alex Schuilenburg <alexs at ecoscentric dot com>,eCos Maintainers <ecos-maintainers at ecos dot sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:54:26 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: eCosCentric copyright hold in headers
- References: <20040408101602.GJ29940@lunn.ch> <4075305D.8020101@eCosCentric.com> <20040408111939.GK29940@lunn.ch> <407556D4.email@example.com> <40755B58.30905@eCosCentric.com> <20040408142145.GL29940@lunn.ch>
Andrew Lunn wrote:
Should we propose what the new banner looks like?
Is the basic format of the current banner OK?
I'd like it to be changed actually. Some of the information parts of the
banner are _very_ frequently poorly maintained and/or inaccurate and do us
a disservice. I think the Authors/Contributors bits are ambiguous; and the
Purpose/Description ditto. It's never really been clear what Date the Date
is for. I think I fill these in more than most people, but still rarely.
Contributions very frequently have inaccurate fields here, most annoyingly
I think something like the following fields would be better/clearer:
Maintained by: <person responsible for _this_ file, irrespective of what it
was derived from>
Contributors: <anyone else who's worked on it and wants a mention>
Derived from: <what file/package it was derived from if relevant
I propose dropping the date entirely partly due to the ambiguity and partly
because it doesn't tell us anything we can't find out more accurately from
I propose dropping the mini-description underneath the filename at the top,
as it is usually no better than the description further down.
It would require some cunning script-fu to try and squeeze the content
there now into this style as best as possible, but it would be good to do
these types of sweeping changes that touch all files once. Of course plenty
of the existing content is wrong too, but we can fix that piecemeal. For
example most of the "Maintained by" headers would be filled in on a package
--- ChangeLog 2004-04-08 16:12:54.000000000 +0200
+++ ChangeLog.new 2004-04-08 16:17:45.000000000 +0200
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
// This file is part of eCos, the Embedded Configurable Operating System.
// Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Red Hat, Inc.
+// Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
// eCos is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
// the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
@@ -26,9 +27,6 @@
// This exception does not invalidate any other reasons why a work based on
// this file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
-// Alternative licenses for eCos may be arranged by contacting Red Hat, Inc.
-// at http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/ecos-license/
The last bit clearly wants to go since its not been true for a long
Absolutely. We just didn't want to touch every file multiple times. People
doing "cvs update" won't like us otherwise :-).
Should the original RedHat Copyright line be deleted as well? I guess
leaving it could confuse people into thinking the files are still
copyright RedHat as well as being FSF..
When the assignment is properly made the RH copyright _must_ disappear in fact.
I have a script that munges file headers, that was used in the RHEPL->GPL
change and other changes before that. It's horrible as it has evolved
piecemeal over time so it's a real hacky mess so I don't want to publicise
it here :-). It deals with all the various comment characters ( /* */
versus // versus # versus ; versus dnl versus <!-- -->) and differing
licenses though (BSD stack, host tools, etc.) IIRC.
A perl wizard may be able to do a better job quite quickly though,
especially if we're to munge the other header fields too - this is one of
the things perl is good at.
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine