On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:03, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:34:18PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 17:19, Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:44:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:00, Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>>>>> The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important
>>>>>>> part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT 
>>>>>>> held the
>>>>>>> rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while
>>>>>>> developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to
>>>>>>> GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the
>>>>>>> current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did 
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the "Andres 
>>>>>>> Cabrera
>>>>>>> and others" to a list of 35 names and still have the "and others".
>>>>>> I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright,
>>>>>> then.  Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if
>>>>>> possible without laying it all out)
>>>>> How to do that in the dep5 format?
>>> [Whoops, I forgot to comment on the above...]
>>> DEP-5 mandates some sections and the naming of those mandated sections.
>>>  Trick is, it permits other fields too, and does not even (in most recent
>>> drafts) limit those to e.g. X-* names.  The idea is, I believe (and I think
>>> it is even mentioned in the specification - too lazy to check right now) is
>>> perhaps some unofficial add-on sections becomes common practice and can then
>>> easily (i.e. without need of updating existing files using it) be adopted in
>>> a later release of the specs.
>>> See e.g. the moin package for how I currently do unofficial tags similar
>>> to what might be done here.
>> We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already
>> have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and
>> others into the 35 or so names (and others)?
> Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document that.
> Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part,
> but the story is.  Do not explain to me, but to the world.

Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with
DFSG-freeness. The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG
free. Copyright years and names are a different matter.


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to