On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:03, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:34:18PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 17:19, Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:44:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:00, Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important >>>>>>> part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT >>>>>>> held the >>>>>>> rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while >>>>>>> developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to >>>>>>> GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the >>>>>>> current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the "Andres >>>>>>> Cabrera >>>>>>> and others" to a list of 35 names and still have the "and others". >>>>>> >>>>>> I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright, >>>>>> then. Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if >>>>>> possible without laying it all out) >>>>> >>>>> How to do that in the dep5 format? >>> >>> [Whoops, I forgot to comment on the above...] >>> >>> DEP-5 mandates some sections and the naming of those mandated sections. >>> Trick is, it permits other fields too, and does not even (in most recent >>> drafts) limit those to e.g. X-* names. The idea is, I believe (and I think >>> it is even mentioned in the specification - too lazy to check right now) is >>> perhaps some unofficial add-on sections becomes common practice and can then >>> easily (i.e. without need of updating existing files using it) be adopted in >>> a later release of the specs. >>> >>> See e.g. the moin package for how I currently do unofficial tags similar >>> to what might be done here. >> >> We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already >> have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and >> others into the 35 or so names (and others)? > > Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document that. > > Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part, > but the story is. Do not explain to me, but to the world.
Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with DFSG-freeness. The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG free. Copyright years and names are a different matter. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
