I understand that this might not be high on the todo list of the gtk+ developers but I would appreciate an answer to that email.
regards, Mathieu On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 13:57 +0200, Mathieu Lacage wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 09:49 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > The problem with making the license for the gtk and glib api docs more > > explicit is that we currently don't have a list of contributors. Someone > > will have to sit down with cvs annotate and produce such a list, before > > we can contact all contributors to ask for their agreement on whatever > > license we want to put in the docs. > > Here is the list of contributors which was built out of: > - cvs commits in all the files contained under the docs directory by > various cvs users who have an account. > - cvs log messages for all the files contained under the docs > directory which reference some else than the commiter. > > I am pretty convinced it is extremely inclusive (i.e., I am pretty sure > I did not miss anyone) since I parsed each log at least 3 times. I > propose to send a message to each of these people along the following > lines. This should clear up the licensing issue. I don't really know > what to do once this information has been gathered. Specifically, I > thing we need to: > - add proper licensing information at the top of each documentation > (glib and gobject documents) which should be a matter of copying the > licensing statement at the start of the <bookinfo> statement. > > - add proper credit to those who contributed: it would be nice to add > a small list somewhere in the documentation, probably another chapter at > the end of the documentation. It would be nice if there was a way to > ensure that these lists are maintained when a patch from someone is > applied. > > - add copyright statements: I have no idea on how to deal with this. > It is pretty easy with source code: the copyright statement at the top > of each source file is maintained by the contributors themselves. Maybe > a similar solution with xml comments at the top of each file would be a > first step. I think the license also requires a copyright statement to > appear next to the license statement. I have no idea what this statement > should contain. Should it simply be a list of the copyright statements > located at the top of each file ? I don't know. Comments are welcome. > > Hi XXX, > > We are trying to clear up the licensing status of the glib documentation > and the cvs logs show that you have directly or indirectly contributed > to this part of glib. We would appreciate if you could take a few > minutes to answer the few questions below. > > 1) Have you really contributed to the glib documentation ? If so, how > big was that contribution ? > - a few typos > - more than a few typos > > 2) If you have contributed "more than a few typos" to the glib > documentation, we need to know who owns the copyright on your > contribution. If you contributed this work as a part of your daytime > payed job, then your employer most likely owns that copyright and we > need to know who that is. Otherwise, you most likely own that copyright > and we need to know this. > > 3) If you have contributed "more than a few typos" to the glib > documentation, we need you to confirm that the "copyright holder" > identified in (2) has accepted the glib documentation license. A copy of > that license is available there: > http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/glib/docs/reference/COPYING?view=markup > Do you confirm that your contribution follows this license ? > - yes > - no > > Mathieu > _______________________________________________ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list -- _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list