Re: 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 :~)
Reply to: