Update to FAQ - copyright notice

[Garrett Smith]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>, Thu,


Really, you should, as was said before, post your significant draft
changes here and make them in the FAQ itself only then there is a
measure of agreement and no sound objections.



And it is a pity that you do not have any.


Copyright has value. It can be sold or donated. There is no practical
way that an amorphous group with a fluctuating membership can come to
and express such a decision - and the group is not a legal entity. A
FAQ maintainer is a legal entity, and can hold or give away copyright.




No; FAQ maintainers should be listed as such, not mixed with
contributors.


However, listing contributors is silly.

It is difficult to be all-inclusive, but it could help for one's resume.

There is, in fact, a very outdated contributors page:
http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/contributors.html

The page needs a brief mention of what was contributed to (the notes, or
the faq). It also needs a lot more names.

Sorting alphabetically would seem less subjective and would remove any
interpretation of "most important" at the top. Sorting by date would
result in names appearing in multiple places which would make it hard to
find.

Firstly, it requires keeping careful track of who contributed what, so
that their names can be removed when their contribution is replaced.

Secondly, there are too many of them to list.

We could start with adding known names.

Anyone who feels unfairly excluded could post to the group, linking to
an archive where they feel there contribution was made. It could be
determined if there is a valid claim or not.

However, if a clearly-identifiable part of the FAQ is in substance
entirely contributed by someone, with at most minor editing, then the
name could be given, for credit only, in that part. But no-one can have
copyright over a part of the FAQ, it is a collective work and
contributors donate their copyright rights.

I think having "contributors" and then linking to the contributors page
would work.

Thoughts?

Garrett

 

[David Mark]

Dr J R Stockton wrote:









It is difficult to be all-inclusive, but it could help for one's resume.

There is, in fact, a very outdated contributors page:
 http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/contributors.html

The page needs a brief mention of what was contributed to (the notes, or
the faq). It also needs a lot more names.

Sorting alphabetically would seem less subjective and would remove any
interpretation of "most important" at the top. Sorting by date would
result in names appearing in multiple places which would make it hard to
find.



We could start with adding known names.

Anyone who feels unfairly excluded could post to the group, linking to
an archive where they feel there contribution was made. It could be
determined if there is a valid claim or not.

I've definitely contributed over the years. I don't have time to link
to any archives though.

[snip]

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted:

And it is a pity that you do not have any.

Copyright has value. It can be sold or donated. There is no practical
way that an amorphous group with a fluctuating membership can come to
and express such a decision - and the group is not a legal entity. A
FAQ maintainer is a legal entity, and can hold or give away copyright.

Is that so? How do you explain, then, that Mozilla.org, given all the
lawyers it is supposed to have, has ultimately decided to write

(C) Contributors

in its products? Because not all contributors are listed in the Credits;
in particular, only a few Bugzilla participants that have made considerable
contributions to the product are listed there.

No; FAQ maintainers should be listed as such, not mixed with
contributors.

That would be acceptable.

However, listing contributors is silly.
Nonsense.

Firstly, it requires keeping careful track of who contributed what, so
that their names can be removed when their contribution is replaced.

Because there is no need to assign to each contributor entry a reference to
what exactly they contributed, their names can be left in. That said, ISTM
that it happens much more often that a previous contribution is refined than
it is replaced as a whole.

Secondly, there are too many of them to list.

I presume the usual suspects can readily be named as many of them are still
active posters. Those that cannot readily be named do not need to be named
explicitly at first ("and others" as last entry suffices; cf. "et al." in
scientific literature). And if anyone thinks they have made a considerable
contribution so they should be listed explicitly, they can check the list
and ask for it.

However, if a clearly-identifiable part of the FAQ is in substance
entirely contributed by someone, with at most minor editing, then the
name could be given, for credit only, in that part. But no-one can have
copyright over a part of the FAQ, it is a collective work and
contributors donate their copyright rights.

Given that at least two FAQ maintainers have on many occasions not even
asked the contributor if a contribution should be added to the FAQ nor
checked back with the contributor on how it should be included, nor have FAQ
maintainers be chosen based on a general census, *nobody* has "donated"
their copyright rights to them when they commented on the FAQ ,and that in
turn lead to changing it for the better. That is exactly why writing

(C) Contributors

is the logical course of action.


PointedEars