On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 04:49:11PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
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.
Good. Let's include that in debian/copyright.I suspect, however, that "This version of the Csound Manual" does not cover the complete work. You mentioned yourself in the earlier non-DEP5 copyright file that some parts were GPL (or was it LGPL?).
- 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