> * Authorship information in a source file is part of a distribution/source attachement. Version control isn't. We don't have an AUTHORS file, which would be the normal, recommended way to palliate this.

How many files have you updated the autorship information? If the answer is zero, then I'm still of the idea that the best place where to find the information about who touched the file is version control

>  * Legally speaking, this is one of the things we can do to be spectacularly Good Guys™. Whatever the license permits and the author's will, the author may not be able to give up moral authorship (this is e.g. the case for French citizens according to French law). Though those considerations are very much superseded there (French law wouldn't apply even if Tim Clendenen was French), and despite the fact that by our license's terms, we are not obliged to pay heed to authorship in any way, this is the nice way to go about acknowledging that bizarrery.

I don't follow. Besides, there are people that should rightfully have their name in the authorship information (if we decide to keep them), but they currently don't. So, either ways, the current status is wrong as far as I am concerned.

> * On a non-legal level, making authorship information proeminent and easy to find (i.e. recognition) is in general the Smart & Good Thing To Do™. In general, the more authorship information in your project (as long as it is correct and however incomplete), the better.

Same comment as above. Plus, I don't think we have the tools to make sure the autorship is correctly updated after every commit. This is why I feel we should get rid of it.

I'm not trying to start a warflame (really! :)), just sharing my view and elaborating on the whys I believe the autorship information is a waste. I'll shut up now ;-)