Re: 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
> > - 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
> > - 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 "ok"s we've gotten have been for GPLv2, not GPLv2+.
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 Developer http://www.debian.org/