On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:18:26PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> >> OK, this is a draft of what I'm going to put in debian/copyright. >> Comments? >> >> The csound manual has a long and complicated history. You can read it in >> the manual itself. That history makes it impossible to pinpoint who did >> what changes where, and thus make accurate copyright claims. However, the >> licensing of the work is not at risk. The manual history has 2 main parts: >> prior to 2003 and afterwards. >> Before 2003, both csound and the csound manual were developed at MIT, >> and they had a restrictive non-commercial license. The licensing rights >> were with MIT. However, in 2003 MIT released the manual under the GFDL, and >> placed in a CVS repository in Sourceforge. Since then, all contributions >> have been made through the csound mailing list and cvs repository there. >> Many contributors will not be listed here, but all contributions have been >> made under the GFDL. > > > I believe it is more proper to say that "MIT were copyright holder" > rather than "licensing rights were with MIT". > > If all parts from 2003 are now GFDL licensed, it seems irrelevant to me > to clarify anything from back then.
So I could just start by saying the manual was released as GFDl by MIT in 2003? Looks good to me :) > > If all contributions not originating from MIT have been tracked using > CVS at SourceForge, it should be possible to get a list of account names > from there, to at least know how many unknown contributors we are > talking about. If this is a large task, it might make sense to first > ask debian-devel if such info is legally relevant or not. I have a list of commiters, and that list is contained in the list I have in my local copy of debian/copyright. However, a large number of contributions are made without commit access (for example, I might write to the mailing list proposing some wording for a certain opcode). Some of them have a "thanks to" note, but I think not all of them do. > > Do we have access to any documents upstream which supports the claim > that all contributions have been made under the GFDL? I don't think so. However, if the code is released under a certain license, and I contribute a patch, I think it is implicit that the code is licensed under the same license as the project. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers