On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:40:01PM -0500, Sarah White wrote:
> On 11/23/18 3:25 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > On 2018-11-23 3:23 p.m., Sarah White wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> Either way: multiline copyright notices are legally valid,
> >> or is that meant to be disputed? I'm not clear on the
> >> intent for this comment:
> >>
> >> ["...don't have to be listed in a notice"]
> >>
> > 
> > legal validity != legal requirement
> > 
> > 
> 
> Sure. You're not wrong.
> 
> You've left out the other section which starts:
> 
> ["The interest in removing or discouraging..."]
> 
> What's the purpose of removing or discouraging
> something which doesn't harm gentoo, but rather,
> helps get more support from: ["contributors who
> are in a situation where a contract may require a
> copyright notice for anything done on-the-clock"]
> 
> ... and/or other harmless reasons.
> 
> The intent / reasoning for removal or prohibition
> of a multiline copyright notice has tenuous footing,
> and worries me that nobody in this thread has made
> a stronger argument than: ["we're not required by any
> law to allow a different copyright notice, so we'll
> require it to be a gentoo authors copyright notice."]

This is  what concerns me as well. All of the folks in this thread who
want to forbid multiline copyright notices have yet to convince me that
there is a technical argument for doing so. If there is one, I'm willing
to be convinced, but that's not what I'm hearing.

For example, If there are really performance reasons, let's see the benchmarks
proving it.

William