On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:37:24 +0200 Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:02, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to > > collect a comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I > > first receive agreements from an encouraging number of main credited > > authors and some other contributors... ;-) > > Why the hell not? You seem to be the person most interested in fixing > this. Seems only logical to me that you do the work. Frans, frankly speaking, I cannot understand your line of reasoning. IANADD, I spotted a bug in the Debian Release Notes back in October 2005, I reported it to the Debian BTS, nothing seems to have been done to fix it until March 2007; I am now trying to help in fixing it, but I cannot fix it without cooperation from copyright holders (since the bug under consideration is a licensing one). I said that, before spending my spare time (which is not so abundant, you know...) in digging into lots of CVS logs, I would like to see agreements from at least the easy-to-determine-and-reach copyright holders. It seems reasonable to me. Your answer basically is "you care, you do all the work!". Could you please avoid acting in such a discouraging manner and *say* whether you actually agree or disagree to the licensing? You already contributed twice to this discussion, but you haven't yet said anything about your will (or lack thereof) to license your copyrighted part of the Release Notes under the GNU GPL v2. Please, see again the final part of http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html for the detailed question, and give an answer. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpr3M1iDxQXy.pgp
Description: PGP signature