Nor is it in our best interest to do so, or in our interest at all, for that matter. :-)
However, it might be relevant to point out that we will not have small islands of code floating around in Pike that are territorially marked, be it with banners or otherwise. Code you write will most likely be maintained and improved on by several other developers long after you have forgotten about it, and the territorial marks may make people shy to do so, which we prefer to avoid.
In practice though, certain substantial contributions such as the Calendar module still bear the scent of their original authors (in this case Mirardoc rather than autodoc, since he would not have it otherwise and we treasure his continuing interest in maintaining it). In this case it is not formally written anywhere since neither party is particularly fond of legal documents, but for other substantial contributors we could most likely be persuaded into other agreements.
The blanket CVS access clauses intentionally does not regulate that; it would needlessly make Pike management difficult for us maintainers, and side-stepping the rules we set up ourselves is always possible if needed.
/ Johan Sundström, Lysator
Previous text:
2003-09-11 18:50: Subject: Re: IDA's policy on Pike contributions
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 06:40:31PM +0200, Alexander Demenshin wrote:
If I license the code to IDA, I give them right to do whatever they want, but I don't want to give them right to claim that this is _their own_ code. That's all.
are you doing that? all they will claim is that it is code of the pike development team. by contributing you are becoming part of that team.
they are not taking away your right to claim that the code was written by you (they can't because that right is not transferable (at least in germany and austria))
greetings, martin.
/ Brevbäraren