On 22.02.2012 14:55, Alexander Yakushev wrote: > On 02/18/2012 03:05 PM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >> I've pushed a commit that adds a copyright notice. The code is hereby >> licensed under the same terms as Awesome itself. > Thanks a lot for your help, Antonio! I am sure this will make it much > easier to push our code upstream. >> Unfortunately I don't use Awesome anymore, so I don't have the >> motivation to work on it myself. >> >> Would it be possible for you to integrate the whole thing upstream? If >> so, please let me know when you are done so that I can mark that Github >> repository as deprecated and point people directly to upstream. > I'm guess now it's Uli's turn to say what's next. So here's my question > to Uli: > > We have Antonio's code licensed under GPL and my changes which I can > provide any way you like. Should I add an additional copyright notice to > the files or just provide my changes as a patch without touching the > copyright side? The only thing I care about is getting the thing to the > users (of course, if it proves itself useful after all) so I agree on > any conditions.
I don't care if your add your own copyright to the files or not. I don't mind having a big patch which adds it all in one go either. I just do mind taking other people's code without being sure that it is allowed. If debian would knew about this, they'd have to remove awesome from the archive! Luckily, no debian developer seems to spy... See my comments on the patch in the other thread and sorry that I'm slow these days. I'll have some time on Monday again, so don't hurry with reacting to my review. :-) (Oh and before someone complains about me being even less responsive in march: I'll be offline from around march 10th till march about-two-weeks-later) Cheers, Uli -- - Buck, when, exactly, did you lose your mind? - Three months ago. I woke up one morning married to a pineapple. An ugly pineapple... But I loved her. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
