On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:57, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:11:39PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > >>> 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. > > Well, I believe it was you who insisted on treating all contributors as > copyright holders. ;-) > > What makes sense to me is that we only deal with explicitly claimed > copyright holders and their properly licensed code. Yes, at least in the > danish jurisdiction there is an implicit ownership as well, but what I > suggest (and I believe that is the common approach in Debian) is to ignore > implicit ownership - and if that means some of the code lack an owner who > licensed the code to us then too bad: then we choose to not redistribute > that piece of code. > > ...something along that I would expect you to get as response too if/when > asking debian-le...@. > > > Problem here - if I understand you correctly - is that we have noone > claiming to be a copyright holder generally for the CSound manual. > > What makes most sense to me is actually to tell upstream that we cannot > redistribute their manual without them explicitly stating a) who are the > copyright holders (which might not be the same as those who wrote it - some > contributors might have chosen to transfer ownership) and b) how each and > every one of those copyright holders have licensed their contributions.
If this was common practice in debian, we would be left without the linux kernel. > > >>> 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. > > I believe that to be a false assumption. I believe common practice in debian has been to trust upstream when it comes to licensing. We cannot provide a full auditory of the code's licensing status, not without investing inordinate amounts of time and effort, and possibly even money. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers