Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 01:12:11AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: On 2008-08-24 20:36, Luk Claes wrote: I guess bug submitters and/or patch providers would also count as contributor? #417310 - patch by Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of my contributions to the release notes were done as part of my job as Stable Release Manager, and thus you have my permission to see all of contributions to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes to be distributed under any DFSG-free license. Greetings Martin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
Hi, Op Sun 24 Aug 2008 om 07:00:56 +0200 schreef W. Martin Borgert: Somehow Luk managed to make me say OK, I'll collect the release notes for lenny. That's DebConf before the first coffee. At this moment I was not aware of the license issue: There is currently no license. The practical impact is probably small, but I really want to solve the issue now. The bug report is open for almost three years now. I talked also to Steve, who is one of the main authors of the release notes and aware of the issue. I ask hereby - and in private mails following this one - all authors of the release notes to place their contribution to the release notes under the GNU General Public license (version 2 or higher) by an GPG-signed e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks for your collaboration. If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start the release notes from scratch :~( Authors mentioned in the release notes: snip Anne Bezemer (is this [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or costar.at.panic.et.tudelft.nl?) Yes, it's J.A. Bezemer [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Op Sun 24 Aug 2008 om 12:19:46 -0700 schreef Steve Langasek: minor contributions: Joost van Baal FWIW, I am happy with any DFSG-free license on my contribution to the release notes. Bye, Joost signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently didn't have any license to modify). Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far fetched at all without having a license...). As I said above... they could hardly claim copyright on modifications which they made without a license. Also, there is no direct damadge made to the contributor too. Compensation is for something they have fair claim. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:55:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently didn't have any license to modify). Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far fetched at all without having a license...). As I said above... they could hardly claim copyright on modifications which they made without a license. Also, there is no direct damadge made to the contributor too. Compensation is for something they have fair claim. One problem is with people who contribute stuff they *didn't* have the rights to. The copyright holder could, of course sue them, but could also sue us. And if those people just go bankrupt, we have no hope of recovering damages (i.e., what we owe the real copyright holder) from them. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:42:12AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: Obviously the implicit copyright all rights reserved would apply by default, but given that all contributions were explicitly published by all of the authors, I think that considering the work to be released into the public domain is a perfectly reasonable legal scenario, until decided otherwise. You try to apply logic and common sense - but we're talking about law - worse, copyright law. Well, okay, but we've already screwed up in theoretical terms. Instead, we have to think about the practical aspects of the law instead - will someone abuse our work, or will someone abuse us in court. (Indeed, many a lawyer will say that we should only ever consider practical aspects, and leave the theory to them.) I suppose copypaste can happen with the Release Notes, but it would not detract from our cause (publishing information about Debian), so we don't care if someone rips us off :) I guess I could envision a case where some minor rogue contributor comes in screaming how his commit was 'all rights reserved' and how they never realized what was happening (shocking! :). But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently didn't have any license to modify). Only after that would they have to explain the insignificant logical details such as just how they managed to mistake the second most visible document in the project -- with the public contact addresses and the public CVS repository with read/write access for many people -- for private venues where their work would be kept safe from copyright infringement. So it's pretty much a non-issue :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
Josip Rodin wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:42:12AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: Obviously the implicit copyright all rights reserved would apply by default, but given that all contributions were explicitly published by all of the authors, I think that considering the work to be released into the public domain is a perfectly reasonable legal scenario, until decided otherwise. You try to apply logic and common sense - but we're talking about law - worse, copyright law. Well, okay, but we've already screwed up in theoretical terms. Instead, we have to think about the practical aspects of the law instead - will someone abuse our work, or will someone abuse us in court. (Indeed, many a lawyer will say that we should only ever consider practical aspects, and leave the theory to them.) I suppose copypaste can happen with the Release Notes, but it would not detract from our cause (publishing information about Debian), so we don't care if someone rips us off :) I guess I could envision a case where some minor rogue contributor comes in screaming how his commit was 'all rights reserved' and how they never realized what was happening (shocking! :). But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently didn't have any license to modify). Only after that would they have to explain the insignificant logical details such as just how they managed to mistake the second most visible document in the project -- with the public contact addresses and the public CVS repository with read/write access for many people -- for private venues where their work would be kept safe from copyright infringement. So it's pretty much a non-issue :) Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far fetched at all without having a license...). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently didn't have any license to modify). Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far fetched at all without having a license...). As I said above... they could hardly claim copyright on modifications which they made without a license. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 02:45:50AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: From http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332782#87, we have these contributors not listed in your mail: - Daniel Nylander Swedish translation. Translations being copyrightable works in their own right, their authors should be asked to ratify the GPLv2 license to give us the best chance of reusing material; or is there another reason you mention here that he's a translator? - Frederik Schueler Obsolete AMD64 information. We don't need to care. Ok, that appears to be true. - Adeodato Simó Some bits about Python, which are not in the release notes anymore. We don't need to care. Correct, thanks; he still showed up in my analysis of the commit messages, but this was a false-positive because robster made a single commit for both the python bits and some other changes. - Nobuhiro IMAI TAKEI Nobumitsu Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that these are two names for the same person? Both names appear independently in the commit messages. - Andrea Mennucci About Zope/Plone update. We need to know if the text still holds for lenny, anyway. That's true. At present, this text is still in the release notes, so this is an outstanding point to be resolved, one way or the other. - Osamu Aoki Is this the stuff about screen etc.? This was revision 4245; the changes appear to include a number of added section headers, some text rearrangement, and some additions regarding apt/aptitude. Since he has already agreed to the licensing under GPLv2, there's no issue here anyway. - Jordà Polo Catalan translation? Or more? All the significant changes were to the Catalan translation. I think we need to at least make an effort to get a sign-off from all these major contributors as part of a GPLv2 licensing, and if they can't be reached we should drop/replace their contributions. OK. It's in the nature of release notes, that many contributions are already removed from the text since long. Bear in mind that this list of major contributors was assembled using bzr (svn) blame - it only looks at those commits that still have lines present in the current version, and this list was further filtered to exclude any contributions of which fewer than 4 lines remain. So although there may be some false positives here (because I didn't check each commit to confirm that there were substantive changes), everyone on this list is a person whose name was mentioned in a commit log for a change which is still part of the current version. FWIW, 1585 lines of the current release notes are traceable, unmodified, to joy's initial import in 2003 - I really don't know how to trace back any further without a *lot* of work, we should probably assume for now that the copyright on those contents is held by the people listed as release notes editors for pre-sarge... If somebody really contributed significantly to the release notes and this contribution is really still part of the future lenny release notes and the contributor does not agree to put their work under GPL2+, they may just ask to remove their contribution and I will immediately do so. Hmm, I didn't notice until now that you were asking for GPLv2 or later. The original licensing proposal for this bug was GPLv2 only. Is the or later licensing something that you think is important? I have a slight preference for GPLv2 only for licensing of stand-alone works, but I'm ok with GPLv2 or later if you think that's best. If you *do* think it's important, we should get that sorted out early, since so far the three oks we've gotten have been for GPLv2, not GPLv2+. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:19:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 07:00:56PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: I ask hereby - and in private mails following this one - all authors of the release notes to place their contribution to the release notes under the GNU General Public license (version 2 or higher) by an GPG-signed e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks for your collaboration. jseidel (Jens? Seidel) Yep, that's me. I'm fine with GPL v2 or later for all my contributions (German translation, Makefile stuff, ...) and agree to this license. Please note that beside jseidel (my old CVS account name) also jseidel-guest is used (svn alioth account name). Could this be cleaned up? Probably not (whould require a svn dump | sed ... | svn load) ... Many commits from me are just checkins of other people translation. I do not own the copyright for it. Nevertheless my commit messages should always contain the contributor. Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
Hi, On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 01:12:11AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: On 2008-08-24 20:36, Luk Claes wrote: I guess bug submitters and/or patch providers would also count as contributor? Yes. There are 16 bugs with a patch tag: #404891 - patch by Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] #339081, #363056 - Japanese translation fixes by Kobayashi Noritada [EMAIL PROTECTED], IMHO minor, not copyrightable #402910, #413409 - patches by Luk ;~) #401317 - patch by Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] #404884 - patch by Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] #415618 - patch by Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] #417769 - patch by Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] #401096 - patch by Miguel Gea Milvaques [EMAIL PROTECTED] #329361 - patch by Joost van Baal [EMAIL PROTECTED] #363468 - patch by Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] #397296 - many hints by Clytie Siddall [EMAIL PROTECTED] #417310 - patch by Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] #419908, #435075 - Russian translation by Yuri Kozlov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, go fot GPLv2+ For small contribution like mine, I do not think you need license because by submitting in this way via Debian system, we pre-approved to Debian to use it as they wish. It is practically copyright assigment to debian, or technically, SPI. Osamu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On 2008-08-24 23:54, Steve Langasek wrote: Translations being copyrightable works in their own right, their authors should be asked to ratify the GPLv2 license to give us the best chance of reusing material; or is there another reason you mention here that he's a translator? Of course, it's just to sort out who did what in case we cannot reach one or the other person in question and would have to remove something. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that these are two names for the same person? Both names appear independently in the commit messages. That was an cut and paste error on my side. One reviewed a change of the other and both contributed multiple times. So although there may be some false positives here (because I didn't check each commit to confirm that there were substantive changes), everyone on this list is a person whose name was mentioned in a commit log for a change which is still part of the current version. Ah, OK. Hmm, I didn't notice until now that you were asking for GPLv2 or later. The original licensing proposal for this bug was GPLv2 only. Is the or later licensing something that you think is important? Given that the release notes will survive some more releases, GPL2+ would give us the chance to go for a later GPL version, if we feel the need. Currently, GPL2 is OK, of course. I have no strong opinion about this point and would agree to about any DFSG-free license for the release notes :~) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 07:00:56PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: I ask hereby - and in private mails following this one - all authors of the release notes to place their contribution to the release notes under the GNU General Public license (version 2 or higher) by an GPG-signed e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks for your collaboration. If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start the release notes from scratch :~( Authors mentioned in the release notes: Josip Rodin (joy) Why do I have to be on top of the list of copyright mischief?! ;) I believe that the unanimous attitude of all editors of this document has always been that they don't have any particular reason or right to restrain use and distribution of the text, because the release notes are inherently a collaborative effort, the writers only describe the release, they don't themselves create something which is absolutely worth claiming copyright on; indeed, nobody has done that. Obviously the implicit copyright all rights reserved would apply by default, but given that all contributions were explicitly published by all of the authors, I think that considering the work to be released into the public domain is a perfectly reasonable legal scenario, until decided otherwise. If you get all the contributors who have claimed authorship (even if they haven't claimed copyright) to consistently and explicitly license the work under the GPL, then that's another reasonable option for the future. I hereby confirm that my edits can be distributed under the GNU General Public License version 2. (That was the version I used back then and of which I'm sure; I haven't fully investigated version 3 so I'd rather defer that.) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On 2008-08-25 23:36, Josip Rodin wrote: Why do I have to be on top of the list of copyright mischief?! ;) Your name is the first in the author list :~) Obviously the implicit copyright all rights reserved would apply by default, but given that all contributions were explicitly published by all of the authors, I think that considering the work to be released into the public domain is a perfectly reasonable legal scenario, until decided otherwise. You try to apply logic and common sense - but we're talking about law - worse, copyright law. I hereby confirm that my edits can be distributed under the GNU General Public License version 2. (That was the version I used back then and of which I'm sure; I haven't fully investigated version 3 so I'd rather defer that.) OK, given that other contributors already agreed to GPL2, too, I drop my suggestion of GPL2 or higher. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 07:00:56PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
Somehow Luk managed to make me say OK, I'll collect the release
notes for lenny. That's DebConf before the first coffee. At
this moment I was not aware of the license issue: There is
currently no license. The practical impact is probably small,
but I really want to solve the issue now. The bug report is open
for almost three years now. I talked also to Steve, who is one
of the main authors of the release notes and aware of the issue.
I was a release note editor for the last release only; my contributions are
far less than those of many others on that list, it's not really fair to
call me a main author...
I ask hereby - and in private mails following this one - all
authors of the release notes to place their contribution to the
release notes under the GNU General Public license (version 2 or
higher) by an GPG-signed e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many
thanks for your collaboration.
Legally, there is no reason to require GPG-signed email; and there's no
guarantee that everyone who has contributed to the notes has a GPG key at
all. Please don't set the bar higher than necessary.
In the bug log, you will see that several contributors have already agreed
to GPLv2 as a license: myself, Osamu Aoki, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
(implicitly - because he was pushing the relicensing, we can assume he
wasn't doing so in contradiction of his own licensing wishes).
If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three
weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start
the release notes from scratch :~(
Authors mentioned in the release notes:
Josip Rodin (joy)
Bob Hilliard (hilliard)
Adam Di Carlo (aph)
Anne Bezemer (is this [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or
costar.at.panic.et.tudelft.nl?)
Rob Bradford (robster)
Frans Pop (fjp)
Andreas Barth (aba)
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peñ(jfs)
Steve Langasek (vorlon)
The old CVS mentions further:
barbier (Denis Barbier)
djpig (Frank Lichtenheld)
ender (David Martínez
fbothamy (probably [EMAIL PROTECTED])
correct.
jseidel (Jens? Seidel)
correct.
liling (Ling Li?)
pmachard (Pierre Machard)
spaillar (Simon Paillard?)
tale (Tapio Lehtonen)
xerakko (Miguel Gea Milvaques)
* What about translations? We start from scratch, but
translators can use their own translations and re-commit under
the terms of GPL.
If we get license approval, I don't see any reason to start from scratch.
* What about other contributors? So far, I could not find other
contributor names in the logs (i.e. other than translations).
If you find or know something, please follow-up.
From http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332782#87, we have
these contributors not listed in your mail:
- Daniel Nylander
- Roberto C. Sánchez
- Clytie Siddall
- Frederik Schueler
- Adeodato Simó
- Nobuhiro IMAI
- Luk Claes
- Andrea Mennucci
- Martin Michlmayr
- Osamu Aoki
- Jordà Polo
I also promised, once upon a time, that I would run an analysis of the
commit logs to try to get a list of other contributors. Fortunately the
release notes are now available in svn, so I can use something better than
'cvs annotate' for this... :) I happened to use bzr-svn for the method
shown below, but it should work equally well with svn instead.
$ bzr branch svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes
release-notes.trunk
$ cd release-notes.trunk
$ for file in $(find * -type f \( -name '*.sgml' -o -name '*.po' \)); do
bzr annotate --all $file
done | cut -f1 -d '|' | sort | uniq -d -c | sort -n ../annotations
$
This gets me a list of 590 commits, ordered by the number of affected lines.
The first 103 of these affect 3 or fewer lines; I'm going to draw an
arbitrary line there, and assert that any contribution with less than 3
remaining unaffected lines in the current version is probably not
copyrightable.
$ sed -i -n -e '/^[[:space:]]*4\b/,$p' ../annotations
$
Now we can grab the list of significant committers to the current revision;
there shouldn't be any surprises in this list:
$ awk '{print $NF}' ../annotations |sort -u
aba
barbier
ender
fbotham
fjp
jfs
joy
jseidel
liling
pmachar
robster
tale
vorlon
xerakko
$
And we can also grab the commit logs for each of these remaining 487
revisions of interest:
$ awk '{print $2}' ../annotations | xargs -n1 bzr log -r \
| grep -v '^[^[:space:]]' ../messages
$
Visually postprocessing gets me the following list of contributors, some
perhaps easier to contact than others. I've grouped them into major or
minor contributors, based on the content of the commit logs; erring on the
side of caution if it's ambiguous.
I think we need to at least make an effort to get a sign-off from all these
major contributors as part of a GPLv2 licensing, and if they can't be
reached we should drop/replace their contributions. For the minor
contributors, I think we'd be ok to leave their changes in if we
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On 2008-08-24 20:36, Luk Claes wrote: I guess bug submitters and/or patch providers would also count as contributor? Yes. There are 16 bugs with a patch tag: #404891 - patch by Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] #339081, #363056 - Japanese translation fixes by Kobayashi Noritada [EMAIL PROTECTED], IMHO minor, not copyrightable #402910, #413409 - patches by Luk ;~) #401317 - patch by Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] #404884 - patch by Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] #415618 - patch by Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] #417769 - patch by Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] #401096 - patch by Miguel Gea Milvaques [EMAIL PROTECTED] #329361 - patch by Joost van Baal [EMAIL PROTECTED] #363468 - patch by Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] #397296 - many hints by Clytie Siddall [EMAIL PROTECTED] #417310 - patch by Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] #419908, #435075 - Russian translation by Yuri Kozlov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you know of more? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On 2008-08-24 12:19, Steve Langasek wrote: I was a release note editor for the last release only; my contributions are far less than those of many others on that list, it's not really fair to call me a main author... OK. Legally, there is no reason to require GPG-signed email; and there's no guarantee that everyone who has contributed to the notes has a GPG key at all. Please don't set the bar higher than necessary. OK, I'll ask for agreement to GPL only and not ask for GPG signature. If we get license approval, I don't see any reason to start from scratch. OK. From http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332782#87, we have these contributors not listed in your mail: - Daniel Nylander Swedish translation. - Roberto C. Sánchez Fix of typos and corrections of bad English. - Clytie Siddall Vietnamese translation, of course, and typo fixes. - Frederik Schueler Obsolete AMD64 information. We don't need to care. - Adeodato Simó Some bits about Python, which are not in the release notes anymore. We don't need to care. - Nobuhiro IMAI TAKEI Nobumitsu - Luk Claes No comment, as Luk is one of the driving forces of this effort. - Andrea Mennucci About Zope/Plone update. We need to know if the text still holds for lenny, anyway. - Martin Michlmayr ARM, MIPS and friends. - Osamu Aoki Is this the stuff about screen etc.? - Jordà Polo Catalan translation? Or more? I think we need to at least make an effort to get a sign-off from all these major contributors as part of a GPLv2 licensing, and if they can't be reached we should drop/replace their contributions. OK. It's in the nature of release notes, that many contributions are already removed from the text since long. FWIW, 1585 lines of the current release notes are traceable, unmodified, to joy's initial import in 2003 - I really don't know how to trace back any further without a *lot* of work, we should probably assume for now that the copyright on those contents is held by the people listed as release notes editors for pre-sarge... If somebody really contributed significantly to the release notes and this contribution is really still part of the future lenny release notes and the contributor does not agree to put their work under GPL2+, they may just ask to remove their contribution and I will immediately do so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
Somehow Luk managed to make me say OK, I'll collect the release notes for lenny. That's DebConf before the first coffee. At this moment I was not aware of the license issue: There is currently no license. The practical impact is probably small, but I really want to solve the issue now. The bug report is open for almost three years now. I talked also to Steve, who is one of the main authors of the release notes and aware of the issue. I ask hereby - and in private mails following this one - all authors of the release notes to place their contribution to the release notes under the GNU General Public license (version 2 or higher) by an GPG-signed e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks for your collaboration. If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start the release notes from scratch :~( Authors mentioned in the release notes: Josip Rodin (joy) Bob Hilliard (hilliard) Adam Di Carlo (aph) Anne Bezemer (is this [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or costar.at.panic.et.tudelft.nl?) Rob Bradford (robster) Frans Pop (fjp) Andreas Barth (aba) Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peñ(jfs) Steve Langasek (vorlon) The old CVS mentions further: barbier (Denis Barbier) djpig (Frank Lichtenheld) ender (David Martínez fbothamy (probably [EMAIL PROTECTED]) jseidel (Jens? Seidel) liling (Ling Li?) pmachard (Pierre Machard) spaillar (Simon Paillard?) tale (Tapio Lehtonen) xerakko (Miguel Gea Milvaques) * What about translations? We start from scratch, but translators can use their own translations and re-commit under the terms of GPL. * What about other contributors? So far, I could not find other contributor names in the logs (i.e. other than translations). If you find or know something, please follow-up. Greetings from the Argentine. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
W. Martin Borgert wrote: Somehow Luk managed to make me say OK, I'll collect the release notes for lenny. That's DebConf before the first coffee. At this moment I was not aware of the license issue: There is currently no license. The practical impact is probably small, but I really want to solve the issue now. The bug report is open for almost three years now. I talked also to Steve, who is one of the main authors of the release notes and aware of the issue. I ask hereby - and in private mails following this one - all authors of the release notes to place their contribution to the release notes under the GNU General Public license (version 2 or higher) by an GPG-signed e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks for your collaboration. If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start the release notes from scratch :~( Authors mentioned in the release notes: Josip Rodin (joy) Bob Hilliard (hilliard) Adam Di Carlo (aph) Anne Bezemer (is this [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or costar.at.panic.et.tudelft.nl?) Rob Bradford (robster) Frans Pop (fjp) Andreas Barth (aba) Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peñ(jfs) Steve Langasek (vorlon) The old CVS mentions further: barbier (Denis Barbier) djpig (Frank Lichtenheld) ender (David Martínez fbothamy (probably [EMAIL PROTECTED]) jseidel (Jens? Seidel) liling (Ling Li?) pmachard (Pierre Machard) spaillar (Simon Paillard?) tale (Tapio Lehtonen) xerakko (Miguel Gea Milvaques) * What about translations? We start from scratch, but translators can use their own translations and re-commit under the terms of GPL. * What about other contributors? So far, I could not find other contributor names in the logs (i.e. other than translations). If you find or know something, please follow-up. I guess bug submitters and/or patch providers would also count as contributor? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
