On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 15:54, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:04:32PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:57, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:11:39PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >>> >>>>> If all contributions not originating from MIT have been tracked using >>>>> CVS at SourceForge, it should be possible to get a list of account names >>>>> from there, to at least know how many unknown contributors we are talking >>>>> about. If this is a large task, it might make sense to first ask >>>>> debian-devel if such info is legally relevant or not. >>>> >>>> I have a list of commiters, and that list is contained in the list I >>>> have in my local copy of debian/copyright. However, a large number of >>>> contributions are made without commit access (for example, I might write to >>>> the mailing list proposing some wording for a certain opcode). Some of them >>>> have a "thanks to" note, but I think not all of them do. >>> >>> Well, I believe it was you who insisted on treating all contributors as >>> copyright holders. ;-) >>> >>> What makes sense to me is that we only deal with explicitly claimed >>> copyright holders and their properly licensed code. Yes, at least in the >>> danish jurisdiction there is an implicit ownership as well, but what I >>> suggest (and I believe that is the common approach in Debian) is to ignore >>> implicit ownership - and if that means some of the code lack an owner who >>> licensed the code to us then too bad: then we choose to not redistribute >>> that piece of code. >>> >>> ...something along that I would expect you to get as response too if/when >>> asking debian-le...@. >>> >>> >>> Problem here - if I understand you correctly - is that we have noone >>> claiming to be a copyright holder generally for the CSound manual. >>> >>> What makes most sense to me is actually to tell upstream that we cannot >>> redistribute their manual without them explicitly stating a) who are the >>> copyright holders (which might not be the same as those who wrote it - some >>> contributors might have chosen to transfer ownership) and b) how each and >>> every one of those copyright holders have licensed their contributions. >> >> If this was common practice in debian, we would be left without the linux >> kernel. > > No. "common practice" means "what is most often done", not "what is always > done".
Can you cite examples of "common practice"? I cited the linux kernel because its the most obvious one. > > Oh, and I do not mean to say that upstream must explicitly list each and > every copyright holder. Some claim that "this team holds copyright, with > this license." I just meant (in that last sentence above) to cover the > possible case of "ah, well, most files are licensed like this, so we simply > assume that the rest are licensed similarly, even if the copyright holders > are someone else). Hmm, there is no explicit copyright claim... I'll see what upstream says to that. > > >>>>> Do we have access to any documents upstream which supports the claim >>>>> that all contributions have been made under the GFDL? >>>> >>>> I don't think so. However, if the code is released under a certain >>>> license, and I contribute a patch, I think it is implicit that the code is >>>> licensed under the same license as the project. >>> >>> I believe that to be a false assumption. >> >> I believe common practice in debian has been to trust upstream when it >> comes to licensing. We cannot provide a full auditory of the code's >> licensing status, not without investing inordinate amounts of time and >> effort, and possibly even money. > > I agree. > > And I see no conflict between this and what I described above. I suspect > that you do, since you mention it here. Care to elaborate? If upstream tells me the work is GFDL'ed, then I have no reason to believe some parts of it are not GFDL, unless explicitly stated. What we are doing here is precisely debating whether the manual is in fact GFDL. -- 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
