On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:31:39PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
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.
They go together: Only the copyright holder can rightfully grant a license. So if copyright holders are not properly accounted for, licensing is bogus!
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers