On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:41, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>> I agree.
>>> And I see no conflict between this and what I described above.  I suspect
>>> that you do, since you mention it here.  Care to elaborate?
>> If upstream tells me the work is GFDL'ed, then I have no reason to
>> believe some parts of it are not GFDL, unless explicitly stated. What
>> we are doing here is precisely debating whether the manual is in fact
>> GFDL.
> Do upstream state that the complete work is GFDL?  Then let's quote verbatim
> that statement.

From PrefaceCopy.html:

This version of the Csound Manual ("The Canonical Csound Manual") is
released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence.


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to