On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:41, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Do upstream state that the complete work is GFDL? Then let's quote verbatim
> that statement.
From PrefaceCopy.html:
This version of the Csound Manual ("The Canonical Csound Manual") is
released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence.
--
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
