Mailing-List: contact commons-httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org;
 run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons HttpClient Project"
 <commons-httpclient-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <40509CCF.6050705@danch.com>
To: "Commons HttpClient Project" <commons-httpclient-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: @author tags
From: Roland Weber <ROLWEBER@de.ibm.com>
Message-ID: 
 <OFBAF2BDC2.04FD97B8-ONC1256E55.002A038F-C1256E55.002E5BDA@de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:24:57 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=_alternative 002DA595C1256E55_="

--=_alternative 002DA595C1256E55_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Hi folks,

let me add a few lines to the discussion...

Dan Christopherson wrote:
> I think that "owner" is intended in the sense of "the primary person 
> responsible for maintaining", not in the sense of the legel owner.

Yes, that was - and is - exactly my understanding of the
term "code owner". However, the discussion that ensued
highlights the only point I really wanted to make with my
posting:
The recommendation found by Chris Lampert contradicts
itself when applied in the context of the HttpClient.

Jeff, and others, my apologies for not making clear in my posting
that I was referring to the "code owner", not the "owner" in a legal
sense. Unfortunately, my mailer does not reasonably support inline
quoting, so the context of my statement may have been lost.


Michael McGrady wrote:
> Bravo, "author" of code and especially code parts does not mean "owner" 
in 
> any sense. "Author" means author, which is accurate.

The recommendation quoted by Chris Lampert is:

>> "One of the most important pieces of information that should appear in 
the
>> source file is the author's name -- not necessarily who edited the file
>> last, but the owner.  Attaching responsibility and accountability to 
source
>> code does wonders in keeping people honest ..."

So it recommends that the author tags be used to indicate code ownership.
I take it your Bravo was meant for the author
of the book _The Pragmatic Programmer_.


Michael McGrady also wrote:
> On the first issue, I am a lawyer and I can assure you that this worry 
is, 
> frankly, silly.

Right now, there is a company with three capital letters on
the loose, which is suing other companies (including another
one with three capital letters) for reasons that most of the
open source community considers to be silly. But it may be
an expensive and lengthy enterprise to prove in court that
a silly thing is a silly thing. If removing author tags may
reduce the risk of being sued, then rip them out.
As a replacement: what about a list that indicates how many classes
and/or methods a contributor has contributed to? I'd keep it in
alphabetical or random order rather than as a ranking, to make
it more of a collaboration and less of a competition.


And finally, since this discussion tangles legal matters, let me
add that the views expressed in this, previous, and following
postings are strictly my own and not those of my employer, which
happens to have three capital letters.


cheers,
  Roland


--=_alternative 002DA595C1256E55_=--