Matthew Burgess wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Matthew Burgess wrote: >> >>> Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a >>> show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The >>> current license has served us well enough so far, I think. >> >> I would really like to get this into 6.2 so the BLFS and LFS books use >> the same license. I did submit a patch that fixes the book. The only >> thing that takes time is the decision to do it. We've been sitting on >> our collective hands on this for over two months. How long does it take >> to make the decision? > > Well, I've already made the decision. I think it makes sense for the > LFS book to have the same license as the BLFS book. However, I don't > think I have the authority to change the license without the consensus > of the copyright holders, which, despite the copyright notice in the > book, isn't just Gerard. So, we'd have to go back and find all those > that have contributed substantial changes to the book and ask for their > permission to change the license. I don't think this can be done within > the currently planned time-scales of the 6.2 release, but if you want to > prove me wrong on that, feel free :-)
OK, I'll try. I looked at the museum and the change logs disn't start naming the change authors until version 3.0. Checking all the major versions since then, I came up with: Gerard Matthew Archaic Manuel Ken Jeremy (Not Huntwork?) Jeremy Huntwork Jim Ryan Alexander Mark Hymers marcheerdink ?? Greg Timothy Alex (Not sure if this is Alexander) jwrober winkie I propose to send all a message asking for a statement assigning of the copyright for their contributions to Gerard. I'll have to research the email addresses. Would that be sufficient? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
