From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Thu Jun 14 14:10:47 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235FC1007C22 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:10:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x235.google.com (mail-io0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD2E6C29B for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:10:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x235.google.com with SMTP id k3-v6so7274913iog.3 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:10:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=HcJZWqnw4UCGSFjfs6VmYdfdt5ZXY6Y3X06DlCcCydM=; b=1ZNwSosWshpfBtE+FSOPyfzk/4OQcB23kEiQ8c5d4JXzYndVccZ2kc8QCkrLb+P2wo bM8UP9Dk0cR/G2V1jlsSpS0CSFQiq4HJwl0eUh0fwNUqH2a/OCeyELbsQudT2qUOvbEe XG73DqWZDh8Zo14Ituf+KtYsam1/K7LCt0wuH5vuvndZNxbzGrqqrRh8YUm9znBEwYh2 hSKmzg6vrI/bFXAobjMgCjCpM9YKMgjSb4ZcjSuLz6o8yO7MuP0VirIBRnbSjEkrxFUj vJVNs8JtN8FgspVOuHN9TaBaWmsyEpctI6pKGBAAqpQbaYraZp+BTui03beZxQgTM0To EVpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HcJZWqnw4UCGSFjfs6VmYdfdt5ZXY6Y3X06DlCcCydM=; b=qoQeGOtzqcNPi1/kxqt+UFl3h8HTqVl4k7XVYD+wdbvXNIY6D/Onp/xSSqPAgE+kqs 2sfDeuFoOPnm67VXVrmNnjKNOadlBL2heYcnAHqZCPmh7eDVQdhqZ2I5RYZZHxa8sMQd QWcEkM3gtKOZaXqYl11D3mSJTNeKQYHvpM22Lz1rqj0mrpzWcjJP/9PcA0pmRGtvpx5R 5ahHErgPdkEWxNpdPUsYtWD4iUEYTOplkjo5XHPzAp1np/vDvISYRqeqtLtlo0eQA5jx QEnmK+w/W66gGQkTvS6JL2QU7Ga6lUkHfoekuOUA8nNZ14AAMGDv87Rzz2F0S+/GdfRW n3sg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2ilChQtARwsyOngaiQ/bEP/SrfzJ8LAFOED1eVE+5qD7NTWnYx /n1drgIjJ3uHohAQiE9AQhpPEwFslNxMIEGZrld7vQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJib6QJFAVazVaZOIhtzEMqe5g92bE0oaDxrbDyYCPLIj1q2pMiaFY8CHoCDAdwBWkhyyJ6uUmM/2/g6w0XZxw= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:29c4:: with SMTP id p187-v6mr2375322iop.299.1528985445804; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 2002:a4f:d028:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:1052:acc7:f9de:2b6d] In-Reply-To: References: <201806130852.w5D8qKd4094584@repo.freebsd.org> <9b6b26cf-dac2-f5ab-e694-5d132ff1bdb9@FreeBSD.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:10:45 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9ytLh-vLyTwNFDyPvAz5-aLR45U Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r335042 - head/usr.bin/top To: Eitan Adler Cc: Bryan Drewery , src-committers , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.26 X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:10:47 -0000 On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: > > I do see some people adding their Copyright on some commits but overall > > we haven't done that as a project and I am curious if we should change > > in that regard. > > The rule of them is about 25% of the file, right? > The law that motivates this (but maybe not requires it) states only substantial change. One cannot mislead people about the copyright term which also feeds into it (which is one of the motivators for not doing it for trivial changes: it would lead people to believe that a copyright is being claimed that might not be substantial). Trouble is, there's no concrete rules for substantial in the laws, and the caselaw is substantially muddied. People know and use the terms, but there's no sharp line that can be drawn or articulated. Generally, the project has adopted a bit of a Potter Stewart like standard. A substantial change is situational. Generally, a 25% or more change is substantial. Sometimes, substantial changes can be less when important new functions are added. Other times, like with mechanical changes that may lack artistic expression, you can change 90% of the file (via indent) and not have it be substantial. The current case is on the boarder. There's a lot of code motion that doesn't change the functionality and just moves code around, inflating any scoring efforts. On the other hand, there's been some level of cleanup of the code as well on a very systemic basic through the whole code base. I've not paid extreme attention to every change, to be honest, but on the whole I think it's a close call. Generally, however, the project has been deferential to cases that are close calls where the author has legitimately asserted a claim. That deference, however, has not been extended in several instances where it's not a borderline case. So there's your answer, clear as mud. Warner