Page 1 of 2

Copyright statement

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:54 am
by Picasso
At the bottom of the docs page on this url:
It mentions the following copyright statement ...
© Copyright 2014-2019, Damien P. George, Paul Sokolovsky, and contributors Last updated on 26 Mar 2019.
Is this correct? Anyone able to explain this?

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:17 am
by pythoncoder
Yes. What is your problem with it? Factual accuracy or some legal issue?

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:23 pm
by Picasso
Well, I just dont understand and it seems odd. It seems to conflict with the MIT License.

The copyright statement in the MIT License (as found in the root of the micropython repo) currently reads: 'Copyright (c) 2013, 2014 Damien P. George'. Should that not be updated to 'Copyright (c) 2013 - 2019 Damien P. George'?
And then, should the documentation not be updated with the same statement, for consistency?

Or perhaps there is much more to it, for which I should just wait for the "Making of ... " book to come out in a couple of years?

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:38 pm
by Turbinenreiter
The year doesn't matter much, since the copyright lasts for a very long time. You can update it every year if you made significant changes. Many people put the initial year in and never update it. Sometimes people update it when there is major release and they actually remember to do it.

Legally, it doesn't make any kind of important difference that I know of.

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:13 pm
by Picasso
Ah, that indeed sounds logical. But what about the shared copyright statement in the documentation (more than one name)? Why is that, and ... does that last for long time too?

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:05 am
by Picasso

The names of contributors like Sokolovsky should not be added on any project level licenses, not for the code, not for the documentation. No copyright statement. This is the case in general, with the exception of the creator of the project of course, and thus also for Sokolovsky. Contributors can be praised and made famous in many ways, but not by claiming its name mentioned in the copyright statements. Pfff....

The 30% mentioned so frequently by Sokolovsky , seems to be a rather strange unit of measurement and is problematic in it self.

Problem #1: The famous 30% claim. FYI: It is not just a matter of quantity.
How do you measure quantity? A module with 1 line of code, 30 lines of overhead and license statement is that really 30% of the value of a 70 line module which contains the same 30 lines license statement?

Problem #2: It is also about quality. If person A invests a week in researching a bug, and then modifies 1 line of code, versus person B who spends his week typing / copying 100 lines of code ... should person B be rewarded more?

Problem #3: Many contributors out there are doing work and do not claim their copyrights. Their effort is just as valuable. Their presence is what makes the community a community! There simply does not exist any special reason that Sokolovsky should be given some preferential treatment. He is just 1 community member, just like any one else. He is not 30% of the community.

Problem #4: Code optimizations make that written and once productive code, can be minimized and optimized. This can be hard work with great benefits. Person A could be doing that, and by so deleting his own work and therefore loosing some of his copyright credits? How does that make sense ..

Problem #5: How are non-coding efforts (and the effect of those efforts) like fundraising, evangelizing, planning, brainstorming etc being reflected in codebase percentage measurement?? Is it fair to leave that out non-coding out the equation?

Really ... the list of problems with the 30% claim can be really long if needed. It is just not a fair or just measure, and for sure not in the spirit of an opensource project. Absurd is a better word.

If have the feeling that today is a great day for the bullying to stop. The community does not deserve this 'power-play' as it is unfolding at the moment. Also the creator of the project does not deserve this.

PS. For everyone who thinks bullying and powerplay is usance in oss projects, and should simply be accepted as fact of life .... you are wrong. Many, many, many, many communities out there do not have this problem. The majority of the communities are are decent communities, with decent people working together and having fun. For years ... without problems. If people grow apart for whatever reasons, the normal course of action is simply to fork and go on with your separated lives, find ways to deal with it in a positive way.

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:13 am
by kevinkk525
Actually you are just making the problem bigger and worse than it is.
Damien and Paul have some kind of agreement and except for the occasional clash there's no problem. Why attack the license if Damien as the author agreed to implement it like this?
In my opinion, you are the one that made this a real problem. Nobody cared in the last month.

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:19 am
by Picasso
I think the problems are real, not at all like "no one has a problem with it". For the good of the community, this has to stop. And everybody knows it!

How can I make a problem bigger if it does not exist?
When did sokolovsky join?
The problem continues today with yet another bully claim (check the link)

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:47 pm
by kevinkk525
Until I told you in another thread (yesterday or today) what was going on and why some problems exist, you had no idea and suddenly it's the biggest problem of the community?
It's a problem mainly between the developers and it is a problem but you don't solve it like that.. There's nothing you and I can do about it.
So, for the love of the community, just be happy about micropython and let those sort the problems out, that are actually involved with them.

Re: Copyright statement

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:30 pm
by Roberthh
@kevinkk25 I fully agree, and was about to write a similar comment.