Hi Oliver, On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Oliver Schmidt <ol...@web.de> wrote: > Iff everything else is settled regarding packaging (incl. licensing) I'll > reach out to the list members and ask for last-minute contribtions. If that > phase is over I'll add a tag to the Git repo. OK, sounds good.
>> If possible update the file LICENSE as well to be zlib >> and GPL-2 as you previously noted. > There must be a misunderstanding! > > I made a statement about _my_ contributions to cc65. I don't know who else > has contributed to cc65 before I started to maintain the upstream repo. In > fact I personally don't see how an exhaustive list of contributors can be > archived. And without acknowledgement from _all_ contributors I don't see me > changing _anything_ regarding the file LICENSE. Then the first step is to ask everyone you (we?) know to allow the relicensing of the whole cc65. This means all contributors of the code who ever changed something in it, even a single character. Do others like John R. Dunning or Ullrich von Bassewitz may have a full commit history and/or list of the contributors over the years? I'm _not_ a lawyer, but do we really need to reach everyone? Would it be enough to ask only people who added their copyright messages in the top of the files? I don't know if others can be counted as they left the copyright to the actual source maintainer or not. At least I don't see any sign that they claim any copyright of their contributions. The LICENSE file states only the previous two coders have the copyright. Not a single sentence mentions others who may have contributed to the source. Until this license issue is not solved, cc65 remains non-free from the Debian point of view. :( Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKjSHr28vXC=gtfxaptv6tiuhezq6uzkwtmt1srsga83bai...@mail.gmail.com
