On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:56:49 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/hydrogen-music/documentation/issues/73 > > Dear Francesco, > > I've enjoyed reading and learning from your analyses on debian-legal, > and I'm happy it was you who noticed this issue and filed this bug! Wow, thanks for the kind words! :-) > [edit: sorry for the delay, it seems I forgot to send this draft 22 Dec > 2022] Oh well... > > There is hope, and GPL2+ licensed docs are pending, but upstream may not > be able to meet our deadlines. I suspect a statement of yours upstream > may expedite the process ;) tldr: It looks to me like the remaining two > old contributors contributed documentation under GPL2+ and that there > isn't any need to rubber-stamp the new documentation subproject, because > their contributions remain inherently GPL2+ licensed, because that > license could not have been legally stripped by moving their work from > the GPL2+ Hydrogen project to the accidentally license-less period of the > Hydrogen/Documentation subproject. OK, let me understand. If I read the Github issue correctly, the SVN repository was split into two separate Git ones (one for the program and one for the documentation), but the license was not copied to the documentation Git repository by mistake. Hence, all the documentation contributions that were made before the repository split are under the license of the program (GPL-2+). All the documentation contributions made after the split are in a legal limbo. But almost all the corresponding contributors sent their consent to license their contributions under GPL-2+, except for two of them, who have not yet showed up... This two MIA contributors are @jeremyz (former member of the development team, active before and after the split and still occasionally online) and @thijz (former member of the development team, active only after the split, but currently vanished). Is this a reasonably accurate summary? Assuming it is, I think the only problem left is due to these two contributors. Ideally they could be tracked down and asked for their consent to the explicit licensing of the documentation. If this cannot be done, what is the extent of their (post-split) contributions to the documentation? I mean: can the documentation do without their (post-split) contributions? Some of their contributions could have already been replaced by material written by others. Those contributions that are still present in the current documentation could be dropped entirely and replaced by something else. Would it be too hard? [...] > I'd be totally OK with you (or someone else) taking up the baton for > these two interrelated bugs. (1025375 and 1020936) I am really sorry, but I lack the spare time to take care of this... :-( -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpirDsKw9Vh2.pgp
Description: PGP signature