On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:42:15PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > Sigh... I understand it is nice if we had copyright section .... but > after all this was "note". Well, now it's a document over 50 pages long (for most architectures, anyway). So it should have its own license section. > If Francesco feels strong about this issue, he should at least put his > effort to send out licensing clarification notice to all involved with > contactable address and give us how they respond to the licensing > clarification to the GPL2 and move one. I think we only need to: a) add the GPL license, as it should have had when it moved from b-f's CVS to the DDP b) ask those that might not be aware that the document is GPL (as it lacked a copyright notice in the DDP CVS, but it had one in the main tarball when it was part of the boot-floppies). c) notify translators that they should be based on that license (some translations should already have the license as they were part of the original b-f CVS too) > If anyone object, they should > clarify what section they own copyright and, if they disagree, let them > or Francesco report to us about their position. Then we remove that > section. True. I don't expect anybody to disagree, however, but you never know. > For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice. Thanks. Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature