Joseph Wakeling wrote Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:10 PM
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 contribution
Graham Percival wrote:
> The beginnings of the manuals. In my restructuring, that's now in
> macros.itexi, although this may well move to a third macro file.
> Hmm, I just noticed that the copyright years are messed up... I'll
> fix that fairly soon.
Brilliant. So as far as the docs are concerne
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:05:35AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
> > unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
> > got GUB working.
>
> Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Wher
Graham Percival wrote:
> Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
> unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
> got GUB working.
Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Where in the source tree is
the explicit statement of the 'or later' ... ?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer writes
>> ... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be
>> even harder tracking down all contributors, who submitted
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer writes
>> ... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be
>> even harder tracking down all contributors, who submitted
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:10:53PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
> > are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
> > input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it cannot
> > be modified.[2])
In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
Kainhofer writes
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
>Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond
> > which are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things
> > like input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it
> > cannot be modified.[2
Travis Briggs wrote:
> 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.
What I recall from submitting to LSR was that I was asked to agree that
by submitting this snippet, I was (a) consigning it to th
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Because they are not allowed by copyright law. They cannot change the license
> if the file is only "mostly" their work. They can only change the license if
> the file is SOLELY their work.
Well, technically they can release their bit of the file under their own
licen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
> writes
>
> >Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
> >to follow these rules:
> >
>
In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
to follow these rules:
-- for code, GPLv2 or later or a more liberal compatible license;
NO NO NO.
Some people are likely to be unhappy with "or later"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 16:21:34 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
> Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 15:28 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Valentin
>
> Villenave:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> >
> > wrote:
> > > What would be good
Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 15:28 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Valentin
Villenave:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> wrote:
> > 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
> >
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
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> wrote:
>> What I propose is that
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
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 con
Don Armstrong wrote:
> This is now my problem,[1] so I'll attempt to get it addressed at some
> point in the future. [I'd certainly like to see Lilypond at least
> clear up some of the issues so that the above can become correct.]
Hmm, I noted you were listed as the Debian maintainer on Launchpad'
18 matches
Mail list logo
