Re: @author tags

[Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM, ceki <ce...@qos.ch> wrote:
> On 27.05.2012 14:01, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> One of my concerns is that author tags misdirect attention to a likely
>> stale list of resources as opposed to the place where information and
>> support can be obtained today: the mailing list and the project. This
>> is where the project is alive, not a list of names, some with email
>> links, some without. The ML is where the action is. Why not have an
>> author tag pointing to the ML or the site? I did that for a while too
>> but no longer. I stil kinda like that one though.
>>
>> The POM can have the same information in more details to boot without
>> repeating it in each file. I also view this as a refactoring of sorts
>> to remove duplication. Why repeat this info in each file? John helped
>> on A but not B? Who cares!? Well, John's ego does. And that's another
>> concern, I'd prefer to work with people who's motivation is the code,
>> not the attribution. The ML, bug tracker, and commit history provide
>> plent of who did what where.
>>
>> When I started on Commons projects, I too added my tag to some lists
>> of 10 (20?) authors in some files. In retrospect, touching files like
>> that here and there is like a dog walking around the forest marking
>> trees. The only benefactor is the dog's ego, not the Forrest.
>>
>> I know I am not my job just like I am not my code or my ego, so I am
>> willing to remove my @authors from the picture. Less smudges on the
>> windows you see ;)
>
>
> The term "ego" makes it sound like taking pride in one's work is a bad
> thing. I feel that it is disrespectful to remove traces of authorship
> in copyrighted works. The concept is embodied in a long standing
> European tradition referred to as "moral rights" [1]. Moral rights
> include the right of attribution which is perpetual and
> inalienable. In the European tradition, the author retains moral
> rights even if he/she cedes the copyright. Thus, it might be argued
> that recommending the removal of author tags is in clear breach of
> European copyright law, at least ignorant of it.
>

Sorry, for replying late to that. But removing @author tags is not a
breach of copyright law. You are right that one cannot waive moral
rights in europe (or at least germany). But this does not mean that
you need to mark whatever you have done. Moral rights are there, if
you have an author tag or not.

it would be a breach imho if you would remove the @author tags against
the will of the moral right holder. But this is not happening.

I will not elaborate on the term ego much; but actually I always
prefer that my own work is known as the work of the team. Many people
here inspire or help me to perform whatever I do. I simply can't tell
that a line of code is actually my own. Usually I get feedback from
others or others inspire me so much that it is "theirs" as well as
mine. Therefore I do not consider it disrespectful when somebody
refers to "us" and points to my work. Instead, I am honored that I
could contribute to such a a great community in a way that is
inclusive, not exclusive. If somebody would say: this is the logging
teams work and that is the work of Christian I would feel excluded.

> The dog marking analogy is outrageous. It is rather fascinating that
> the *symbolically* detrimental practice of author tag removal should
> be advocated by those most hurt by it, in this case oss developers
> such as yourself.

I really don't know why removal of author tags hurt us. As I
understand it, it even does protect us against patent trolls and other
species. If you mean different things than above, i am interested in
what you mean further.

In any case, I am against removing the @author tags from log4j 1. The
reason is that you are opposing to it and that they make feel you good
(which is good). You are one of the main contributors to this great
API and you have deserved respect for your wishes (as every else
working on it).

Also I would like to mention that I don't consider your opinion "bad"
or so, it is just a little different to mine. :-)

Cheers
Christian

> It reminds me of the toothless guy in the blue shirt
> getting food stamps who "does not care for government" and votes
> Republican [2]. Admittedly, the video is partial and outrageous. It
> should not be taken as a personal attack but as an illustration of
> obvious contradictions defended tooth-and-nail.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)#In_Europe
> [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciuGxdMuQLg
>
>
> --
> Ceki
> http://twitter.com/#!/ceki
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

Re: @author tags

[ceki <ce...@qos.ch>]

Comments inline.

On 24.07.2012 08:56, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM, ceki <ce...@qos.ch> wrote:
>> On 27.05.2012 14:01, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> One of my concerns is that author tags misdirect attention to a likely
>>> stale list of resources as opposed to the place where information and
>>> support can be obtained today: the mailing list and the project. This
>>> is where the project is alive, not a list of names, some with email
>>> links, some without. The ML is where the action is. Why not have an
>>> author tag pointing to the ML or the site? I did that for a while too
>>> but no longer. I stil kinda like that one though.
>>>
>>> The POM can have the same information in more details to boot without
>>> repeating it in each file. I also view this as a refactoring of sorts
>>> to remove duplication. Why repeat this info in each file? John helped
>>> on A but not B? Who cares!? Well, John's ego does. And that's another
>>> concern, I'd prefer to work with people who's motivation is the code,
>>> not the attribution. The ML, bug tracker, and commit history provide
>>> plent of who did what where.
>>>
>>> When I started on Commons projects, I too added my tag to some lists
>>> of 10 (20?) authors in some files. In retrospect, touching files like
>>> that here and there is like a dog walking around the forest marking
>>> trees. The only benefactor is the dog's ego, not the Forrest.
>>>
>>> I know I am not my job just like I am not my code or my ego, so I am
>>> willing to remove my @authors from the picture. Less smudges on the
>>> windows you see ;)
>>
>>
>> The term "ego" makes it sound like taking pride in one's work is a bad
>> thing. I feel that it is disrespectful to remove traces of authorship
>> in copyrighted works. The concept is embodied in a long standing
>> European tradition referred to as "moral rights" [1]. Moral rights
>> include the right of attribution which is perpetual and
>> inalienable. In the European tradition, the author retains moral
>> rights even if he/she cedes the copyright. Thus, it might be argued
>> that recommending the removal of author tags is in clear breach of
>> European copyright law, at least ignorant of it.
>>
>
> Sorry, for replying late to that. But removing @author tags is not a
> breach of copyright law. You are right that one cannot waive moral
> rights in europe (or at least germany). But this does not mean that
> you need to mark whatever you have done. Moral rights are there, if
> you have an author tag or not.

Moral rights [1] encompass attribution rights [2]. By officially
discouraging author tags on February 2004, the board has created an
environment hostile to attribution rights as attested by countless
threads, including this thread.

> it would be a breach imho if you would remove the @author tags against
> the will of the moral right holder. But this is not happening.

Sure, removing author tags without consent is much worse than removing
them with the consent of the author. However, you should not ignore
the peer pressure exerted on the authors to yield. Regrettably, it is
increasingly difficult (if not impossible) to create new Apache
projects with author tags.

> I will not elaborate on the term ego much; but actually I always
> prefer that my own work is known as the work of the team. Many people
> here inspire or help me to perform whatever I do. I simply can't tell
> that a line of code is actually my own. Usually I get feedback from
> others or others inspire me so much that it is "theirs" as well as
> mine. Therefore I do not consider it disrespectful when somebody
> refers to "us" and points to my work. Instead, I am honored that I
> could contribute to such a a great community in a way that is
> inclusive, not exclusive. If somebody would say: this is the logging
> teams work and that is the work of Christian I would feel excluded.

Like you, I also very much enjoy working with other people and value
their feedback. However, there is no contradiction in working
collaboratively and giving appropriate attribution to authors. For
instance, in scientific publications authors often work
collaboratively and each author gets attribution.

>> The dog marking analogy is outrageous. It is rather fascinating that
>> the *symbolically* detrimental practice of author tag removal should
>> be advocated by those most hurt by it, in this case oss developers
>> such as yourself.
>
> I really don't know why removal of author tags hurt us. As I
> understand it, it even does protect us against patent trolls and other
> species. If you mean different things than above, i am interested in
> what you mean further.

Author tags allow authors to accumulate positive reputation. Other
than the pleasure of the work itself, there aren't many other
currencies in which oss developers are paid.

> In any case, I am against removing the @author tags from log4j 1. The
> reason is that you are opposing to it and that they make feel you good
> (which is good). You are one of the main contributors to this great
> API and you have deserved respect for your wishes (as every else
> working on it).

Well, thank you.

> Also I would like to mention that I don't consider your opinion "bad"
> or so, it is just a little different to mine. :-)

Glad we could have this discussion.

> Cheers
> Christian
>

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_%28copyright%29
-- 
Ceki
http://tinyurl.com/proLogback




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org