Authors and contributors of forked projectHow can an open source project attract new contributors?When does a forked project require a license?Donations and open source projects with multiple contributorsMust contributor agreements be physically signed?If a project is forked and its license is changed, which license should be followed?When to list contributorsContributor License Agreements and anonymous/pseudonymous contributorsStarting (not forking) a new project based on a seemingly dead oneWhat should I do if maintainers are unresponsive/how can I become a maintainer?Why boilerplates are created from scratch, not forked?
What is the oldest instrument ever?
What should I use to get rid of some kind of weed in my onions
Is your maximum jump distance halved by grappling?
Program for finding longest run of zeros from a list of 100 random integers which are either 0 or 1
Can I bring back Planetary Romance as a genre?
Mindfulness of Watching Youtube
Is there a list of the most-transited airports in the world?
Illegal assignment from Id to List
How is it believable that Euron could so easily pull off this ambush?
Visual Studio Code download existing code
Existence of a weight of a representation in the fundamental Weyl chamber
Using mean length and mean weight to calculate mean BMI?
Do these creatures from the Tomb of Annihilation campaign speak Common?
How do I minimise waste on a flight?
Do you take falling damage if falling from 20 feet or less while grappled by someone affected by the Cat's Grace option of the Enhance Ability spell?
Creating Stored Procedure in local db that references tables in linked server
How can it be that ssh somename works, while nslookup somename does not?
What happens when the drag force exceeds the weight of an object falling into earth?
Is it safe to keep the GPU on 100% utilization for a very long time?
Gift for mentor after his thesis defense?
Why doesn't increasing the temperature of something like wood or paper set them on fire?
Would the rotation of the starfield from a ring station be too disorienting?
Crime rates in a post-scarcity economy
Does this website provide consistent translation into Wookiee?
Authors and contributors of forked project
How can an open source project attract new contributors?When does a forked project require a license?Donations and open source projects with multiple contributorsMust contributor agreements be physically signed?If a project is forked and its license is changed, which license should be followed?When to list contributorsContributor License Agreements and anonymous/pseudonymous contributorsStarting (not forking) a new project based on a seemingly dead oneWhat should I do if maintainers are unresponsive/how can I become a maintainer?Why boilerplates are created from scratch, not forked?
There is an NPM package on github geveloped by the company and licensed under MIT.
There is one author listed in package.json file of this package, and there is a company copyright in the license.
I've made a fork of this project in order to rewrite it for my own needs (not for making the pull request, since the changes are going to be quite heavy). If I understand correctly, I must preserve the existing copyright and can add my own one under it. But what to do with package.json entries?
- Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor?
- Or should I somehow refer to the company in general?
- Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
I have no real experience with FLOSS projects yet, so maybe this question is somewhat incomplete, - in this case, I'll be grateful for pointing out on any missing parts of a picture.
contributor forking
asked Apr 29 at 8:25
CerberusCerberus
1535
add a comment |
There is an NPM package on github geveloped by the company and licensed under MIT.
There is one author listed in package.json file of this package, and there is a company copyright in the license.
I've made a fork of this project in order to rewrite it for my own needs (not for making the pull request, since the changes are going to be quite heavy). If I understand correctly, I must preserve the existing copyright and can add my own one under it. But what to do with package.json entries?
- Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor?
- Or should I somehow refer to the company in general?
- Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
I have no real experience with FLOSS projects yet, so maybe this question is somewhat incomplete, - in this case, I'll be grateful for pointing out on any missing parts of a picture.
contributor forking
asked Apr 29 at 8:25
CerberusCerberus
1535
IANAL, but afaik, it's legal for you to do whatever you'd like with it, as it's licensed as such. Provided you include with the source a copy of the MIT license, that is. Of course MIT doesn't revoke the copyright claim, but it does revoke any requirement to display or uphold it, beyond as part of the copy of the original license.
– Skidsdev
Apr 29 at 14:24
add a comment |
There is an NPM package on github geveloped by the company and licensed under MIT.
There is one author listed in package.json file of this package, and there is a company copyright in the license.
I've made a fork of this project in order to rewrite it for my own needs (not for making the pull request, since the changes are going to be quite heavy). If I understand correctly, I must preserve the existing copyright and can add my own one under it. But what to do with package.json entries?
- Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor?
- Or should I somehow refer to the company in general?
- Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
I have no real experience with FLOSS projects yet, so maybe this question is somewhat incomplete, - in this case, I'll be grateful for pointing out on any missing parts of a picture.
contributor forking
asked Apr 29 at 8:25
CerberusCerberus
1535
There is an NPM package on github geveloped by the company and licensed under MIT.
There is one author listed in package.json file of this package, and there is a company copyright in the license.
I've made a fork of this project in order to rewrite it for my own needs (not for making the pull request, since the changes are going to be quite heavy). If I understand correctly, I must preserve the existing copyright and can add my own one under it. But what to do with package.json entries?
- Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor?
- Or should I somehow refer to the company in general?
- Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
I have no real experience with FLOSS projects yet, so maybe this question is somewhat incomplete, - in this case, I'll be grateful for pointing out on any missing parts of a picture.
contributor forking
contributor forking
asked Apr 29 at 8:25
CerberusCerberus
1535
asked Apr 29 at 8:25
CerberusCerberus
1535
asked Apr 29 at 8:25
CerberusCerberus
1535
asked Apr 29 at 8:25
CerberusCerberus
1535
asked Apr 29 at 8:25
CerberusCerberus
1535
1535
IANAL, but afaik, it's legal for you to do whatever you'd like with it, as it's licensed as such. Provided you include with the source a copy of the MIT license, that is. Of course MIT doesn't revoke the copyright claim, but it does revoke any requirement to display or uphold it, beyond as part of the copy of the original license.
– Skidsdev
Apr 29 at 14:24
add a comment |
IANAL, but afaik, it's legal for you to do whatever you'd like with it, as it's licensed as such. Provided you include with the source a copy of the MIT license, that is. Of course MIT doesn't revoke the copyright claim, but it does revoke any requirement to display or uphold it, beyond as part of the copy of the original license.
– Skidsdev
Apr 29 at 14:24
IANAL, but afaik, it's legal for you to do whatever you'd like with it, as it's licensed as such. Provided you include with the source a copy of the MIT license, that is. Of course MIT doesn't revoke the copyright claim, but it does revoke any requirement to display or uphold it, beyond as part of the copy of the original license.
– Skidsdev
Apr 29 at 14:24
IANAL, but afaik, it's legal for you to do whatever you'd like with it, as it's licensed as such. Provided you include with the source a copy of the MIT license, that is. Of course MIT doesn't revoke the copyright claim, but it does revoke any requirement to display or uphold it, beyond as part of the copy of the original license.
– Skidsdev
Apr 29 at 14:24
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor? Or should I somehow refer to the company in general? Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
The documentation for the package.json file says that
The “author” is one person. “contributors” is an array of people.
Unfortunately, that doesn't reflect the reality of copyright law regarding works with multiple creators, which says that everyone who has made a copyrightable contribution to a work has a copyright interest therein. Fortunately, that is unaffected by local conventions such as the package.json file. So we're not dealing with anything formal as regards assertion of rightsholding status; it's just a packaging convention.
The function of the author entry seems to be to direct humans who wish to contact the person who best knows about the code they're looking at. I presume that the original author might get fed up of telling people that (s)he only wrote the original code on which the work-in-question rests, and that they need to contact the person who made all the modifications, ie, you.
So my advice, and it's only advice, as regards that file, is that you list yourself as author and the original author as a contributor.
As for the copyright assertions, as you suggest, leave all those that are already there intact and add one of your own.
answered Apr 29 at 9:50
MadHatterMadHatter
10.4k12041
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8242%2fauthors-and-contributors-of-forked-project%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor? Or should I somehow refer to the company in general? Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
The documentation for the package.json file says that
The “author” is one person. “contributors” is an array of people.
Unfortunately, that doesn't reflect the reality of copyright law regarding works with multiple creators, which says that everyone who has made a copyrightable contribution to a work has a copyright interest therein. Fortunately, that is unaffected by local conventions such as the package.json file. So we're not dealing with anything formal as regards assertion of rightsholding status; it's just a packaging convention.
The function of the author entry seems to be to direct humans who wish to contact the person who best knows about the code they're looking at. I presume that the original author might get fed up of telling people that (s)he only wrote the original code on which the work-in-question rests, and that they need to contact the person who made all the modifications, ie, you.
So my advice, and it's only advice, as regards that file, is that you list yourself as author and the original author as a contributor.
As for the copyright assertions, as you suggest, leave all those that are already there intact and add one of your own.
answered Apr 29 at 9:50
MadHatterMadHatter
10.4k12041
add a comment |
Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor? Or should I somehow refer to the company in general? Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
The documentation for the package.json file says that
The “author” is one person. “contributors” is an array of people.
Unfortunately, that doesn't reflect the reality of copyright law regarding works with multiple creators, which says that everyone who has made a copyrightable contribution to a work has a copyright interest therein. Fortunately, that is unaffected by local conventions such as the package.json file. So we're not dealing with anything formal as regards assertion of rightsholding status; it's just a packaging convention.
The function of the author entry seems to be to direct humans who wish to contact the person who best knows about the code they're looking at. I presume that the original author might get fed up of telling people that (s)he only wrote the original code on which the work-in-question rests, and that they need to contact the person who made all the modifications, ie, you.
So my advice, and it's only advice, as regards that file, is that you list yourself as author and the original author as a contributor.
As for the copyright assertions, as you suggest, leave all those that are already there intact and add one of your own.
answered Apr 29 at 9:50
MadHatterMadHatter
10.4k12041
add a comment |
Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor? Or should I somehow refer to the company in general? Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
The documentation for the package.json file says that
The “author” is one person. “contributors” is an array of people.
Unfortunately, that doesn't reflect the reality of copyright law regarding works with multiple creators, which says that everyone who has made a copyrightable contribution to a work has a copyright interest therein. Fortunately, that is unaffected by local conventions such as the package.json file. So we're not dealing with anything formal as regards assertion of rightsholding status; it's just a packaging convention.
The function of the author entry seems to be to direct humans who wish to contact the person who best knows about the code they're looking at. I presume that the original author might get fed up of telling people that (s)he only wrote the original code on which the work-in-question rests, and that they need to contact the person who made all the modifications, ie, you.
So my advice, and it's only advice, as regards that file, is that you list yourself as author and the original author as a contributor.
As for the copyright assertions, as you suggest, leave all those that are already there intact and add one of your own.
answered Apr 29 at 9:50
MadHatterMadHatter
10.4k12041
Should I list myself as author, and original author as contributor? Or should I somehow refer to the company in general? Or it is legal to only mention myself here (and leave the reference to company in README, which I feel I must do anyway)?
The documentation for the package.json file says that
The “author” is one person. “contributors” is an array of people.
Unfortunately, that doesn't reflect the reality of copyright law regarding works with multiple creators, which says that everyone who has made a copyrightable contribution to a work has a copyright interest therein. Fortunately, that is unaffected by local conventions such as the package.json file. So we're not dealing with anything formal as regards assertion of rightsholding status; it's just a packaging convention.
The function of the author entry seems to be to direct humans who wish to contact the person who best knows about the code they're looking at. I presume that the original author might get fed up of telling people that (s)he only wrote the original code on which the work-in-question rests, and that they need to contact the person who made all the modifications, ie, you.
So my advice, and it's only advice, as regards that file, is that you list yourself as author and the original author as a contributor.
As for the copyright assertions, as you suggest, leave all those that are already there intact and add one of your own.
answered Apr 29 at 9:50
MadHatterMadHatter
10.4k12041
answered Apr 29 at 9:50
MadHatterMadHatter
10.4k12041
answered Apr 29 at 9:50
MadHatterMadHatter
10.4k12041
answered Apr 29 at 9:50
MadHatterMadHatter
10.4k12041
10.4k12041
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8242%2fauthors-and-contributors-of-forked-project%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
IANAL, but afaik, it's legal for you to do whatever you'd like with it, as it's licensed as such. Provided you include with the source a copy of the MIT license, that is. Of course MIT doesn't revoke the copyright claim, but it does revoke any requirement to display or uphold it, beyond as part of the copy of the original license.
– Skidsdev
Apr 29 at 14:24