The source material could be public domain, but the snippet itself is a 'derivative work' and is thus under the copyright of whoever made it.
-Travis On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Valentin Villenave <v.villen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling > <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: >> What I propose is that I maintain a separate branch of the code (but >> keep pulling/rebasing against the Lilypond master) to insert appropriate >> copyright and licensing notices. git blame should help to give a better >> idea of who has contributed to what, so I can fire of queries to authors >> where necessary. > > Good luck with that :) > >> What would be good is if as many contributors as possible can reply to >> this email just to OK (i) my putting copyright/licensing notices in the >> files they have contributed to and (ii) their licensing preferences for >> their contributions: > > OK for my contributions. "or later" clause OK as well. > >> I think that snippets are already public domain since it's a condition >> of submission to LSR. > > public domain is not a license. That would be > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL :-) > > Regards, > Valentin > > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-devel mailing list > lilypond-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel > _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
