Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ion] 22649: - Lesson One: Don't revert commits b ecause your eyes are inventing the word "copyright". I tried really hard, I really did, but I could not find even the word "copy", much less "copy right". - Lesson Two: What do you know! En a

[Murphy, Ged (Bolton)]

This is still James' code, it's just been moved out of sol.rc and into a
separate file.
My point was, if someone translated my code and named themselves as the
programmer (ok, not using the word copyright) it would p!ss me off a little
bit.

I wasn't having a go at anyone, my commit message was entirely civil and
just correcting something which seemed wrong to me. God only knows why
you've taken offence, or needed to revert to belittling.

Apologies to EmuandCo, this is not aimed at you.


-----Original Message-----
From: ion(a)svn.reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 27 June 2006 00:50
To: ros-diffs(a)reactos.org
Subject: [ros-diffs] [ion] 22649: - Lesson One: Don't revert commits because
your eyes are inventing the word "copyright". I tried really hard, I really
did, but I could not find even the word "copy", much less "copyright".
-
Lesson Two: What do you know! En and D


Author: ion
Date: Tue Jun 27 03:50:03 2006
New Revision: 22649

URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=22649&view=rev
Log:
- Lesson One: Don't revert commits because your eyes are inventing the word
"copyright". I tried really hard, I really did, but I could not find even
the word "copy", much less "copyright".
- Lesson Two: What do you know! En and De.rc actually *are* our files, not
James Brown's (his is sol.rc, which hasn't been altered with a ROS Header).
- Lesson Three: It is official (voted) ROS Policy that all ROS files have a
header. Reverting this header violated it.

Modified:
    trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc
    trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc

Modified: trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc
URL:
http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/sol
itaire/de.rc?rev=22649&r1=22648&r2=22649&view=diff
============================================================================
==
--- trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc (original)
+++ trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc Tue Jun 27
03:50:03 2006
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+/*
+ * PROJECT:     Solitaire
+ * LICENSE:     Freeware, permission to use under Public Domain
+ * FILE:        base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc
+ * PURPOSE:     German Language File for Solitaire
+ * PROGRAMMERS: Daniel "EmuandCo" Reimer (reimer.daniel(a)freenet.de)
+ */
 #include "resource.h"
 
 #define APSTUDIO_READONLY_SYMBOLS

Modified: trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc
URL:
http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/sol
itaire/en.rc?rev=22649&r1=22648&r2=22649&view=diff
============================================================================
==
--- trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc (original)
+++ trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc Tue Jun 27
03:50:03 2006
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+/*
+ * PROJECT:     Solitaire
+ * LICENSE:     Freeware, permission to use under Public Domain
+ * FILE:        base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc
+ * PURPOSE:     English Language File for Solitaire
+ * PROGRAMMERS: Daniel "EmuandCo" Reimer (reimer.daniel(a)freenet.de)
+ */
 #include "resource.h"
 
 #define APSTUDIO_READONLY_SYMBOLS

[Peter Dolding]

Sorry to stick my nose in here.
Two critical points have been missed.  Fine in this case since the code 
was declare public domain.
Other cases it will not be fine.   The new alterations started under a 
new copyright.  Can override public domain.  If it was a GPL licence 
even a BSD licence how can you say it up the creek without a paddle.

If a document was created by X person then altered by Y.  X persons 
copyright still stands until what time it becomes public domain.  Even 
that Y holds copyright on the alterations so is also allowed a credit 
mark under the most country's.
Personally think both have stuffed up minorly.  Note strange I could not 
find the files in the Reactos tree.

Its also a fault I find with MSVS it does not licence tag the .rc 
files.  It would make job simpler.  If there is no simpler code as all 
between the .rc files it would be fine.  I totally don't expect that.
The lines I would normally add are.
/*
 From project Solitaire
That was under license: Freeware, permission to use under Public Domain
based on  <filename>
By Daniel "EmuandCo" Reimer (reimer.daniel(a)freenet.de)
New content licensed under <GPL Reactos as per above>
Translation/Alterations by
<list people here><< People to track down to prove that the license 
change was done under permitted grounds ie new content.
*/
Now the file has two licences ie GPL alterations and Public domain 
content.  If person takes the new content they are stuffed.  But a 
person could return it to public domain if the remove the content we 
have altered.

The other option is just to over license it since its public domain and 
it part of a new work.  Its still a good idea to leave a marker in case 
of future audits.

If someone comes along and said hey your file looks like ours.  And we 
have markers can quickly say hey did you acquire that file from there.

Yes I know its large.  It gets more complex with BSD and GPL.  Its all 
about tracking.  GPL master copyrighter stays.  No option to relicense 
is given.  Alteration by the Reactos team or author marks is all that 
could be added.  BSD can be overlicened as long as the old BSD header 
with first copyright holder stays and the new license is not 
incomparable with BSD.

Playing with these things can turn into breach of copyright very quickly.
Murphy, Ged (Bolton) wrote:
>   This is still James' code, it's just been
> moved out of sol.rc and into a
>  separate file.
>  My point was, if someone translated my code and named themselves as the
>  programmer (ok, not using the word copyright) it would p!ss me off a little
>  bit.
>
>  I wasn't having a go at anyone, my commit message was entirely civil and
>  just correcting something which seemed wrong to me. God only knows why
>  you've taken offence, or needed to revert to belittling.
>
>  Apologies to EmuandCo, this is not aimed at you.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: ion(a)svn.reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>  Sent: 27 June 2006 00:50
>  To: ros-diffs(a)reactos.org
>  Subject: [ros-diffs] [ion] 22649: - Lesson One: Don't revert commits because
>  your eyes are inventing the word "copyright". I tried really hard, I really
>  did, but I could not find even the word "copy", much less
> "copyright". -
>  Lesson Two: What do you know! En and D
>
>
>  Author: ion
>  Date: Tue Jun 27 03:50:03 2006
>  New Revision: 22649
>
>  URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=22649&view=rev
>  Log:
>  - Lesson One: Don't revert commits because your eyes are inventing the word
>  "copyright". I tried really hard, I really did, but I could not find even
>  the word "copy", much less "copyright".
>  - Lesson Two: What do you know! En and De.rc actually *are* our files, not
>  James Brown's (his is sol.rc, which hasn't been altered with a ROS Header).
>  - Lesson Three: It is official (voted) ROS Policy that all ROS files have a
>  header. Reverting this header violated it.
>
>  Modified:
>      trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc
>      trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc
>
>  Modified: trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc
>  URL:
>  http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/sol
>  itaire/de.rc?rev=22649&r1=22648&r2=22649&view=diff
>  ============================================================================
>  ==
>  --- trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc (original)
>  +++ trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc Tue Jun 27
>  03:50:03 2006
>  @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
>  +/*
>  + * PROJECT:     Solitaire
>  + * LICENSE:     Freeware, permission to use under Public Domain
>  + * FILE:        base/applications/games/solitaire/de.rc
>  + * PURPOSE:     German Language File for Solitaire
>  + * PROGRAMMERS: Daniel "EmuandCo" Reimer (reimer.daniel(a)freenet.de)
>  + */
>   #include "resource.h"
>   
>   #define APSTUDIO_READONLY_SYMBOLS
>
>  Modified: trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc
>  URL:
>  http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/sol
>  itaire/en.rc?rev=22649&r1=22648&r2=22649&view=diff
>  ============================================================================
>  ==
>  --- trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc (original)
>  +++ trunk/reactos/base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc Tue Jun 27
>  03:50:03 2006
>  @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
>  +/*
>  + * PROJECT:     Solitaire
>  + * LICENSE:     Freeware, permission to use under Public Domain
>  + * FILE:        base/applications/games/solitaire/en.rc
>  + * PURPOSE:     English Language File for Solitaire
>  + * PROGRAMMERS: Daniel "EmuandCo" Reimer (reimer.daniel(a)freenet.de)
>  + */
>   #include "resource.h"
>   
>   #define APSTUDIO_READONLY_SYMBOLS
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>

[Daniel Reimer]

OK, guys. What did I miss? What happened?
Btw, thx for "this is not aimed at you" :-)


Daniel "EmuandCo" Reimer

[Alex Ionescu]

Murphy, Ged (Bolton) wrote:
>   This is still James' code, it's just been
> moved out of sol.rc and into a
>  separate file. 
His code is Public Domain... And De.rc was EmuandsCo.

>   My point was, if someone translated my code and named
> themselves as the
>  programmer (ok, not using the word copyright) it would p!ss me off a little
>  bit. 
I think you're mising the point that "Programmer" is supposed to mean
the "Person who wrote this file" ie, the owner. And yes, Emuandco did
write those two files.

>   
>  I wasn't having a go at anyone, my commit message was entirely civil and
>  just correcting something which seemed wrong to me. God only knows why
>  you've taken offence, or needed to revert to belittling. 
Probably because on the IRC channel you went all "hahah!! LOL @
EmuandCo!!!" which I found extremly disrespectful attitude for someone
who just commited his first patch and tried to respect our header rules.
(Putting him on a pedestal and then bashing his change).

>   
>  Apologies to EmuandCo, this is not aimed at you.
>   
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu