Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 4 May 2011 09:43, Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: >> >> Very few people end up being listed as a gnulib module maintainer >> if they are not also an author (aka patch contributor). >> >> To determine "authorship", you must look at the commit logs: >> >> $ git log --pretty=format:%aN lib/getgroups.c|sort |uniq -c >> 2 Bruno Haible >> 9 Eric Blake >> 9 Jim Meyering >> 7 Paul Eggert >> >> This suggests that you need to update most of your lists. > > Not so: only copyright-worthy patches count (as for assignment). So
You must inspect how the file has been modified over the years, and use your judgment. If someone has made more than a couple of non-trivial changes (i.e., not just copyright year updates), then you might as well get their permission to relicense. If in doubt -- and you want to take the time to create the minimal list -- read the actual diffs. Otherwise, just assume that everyone who has committed a change must grant permission. > the underlying problem appears to be that copyright holders are not > listed in the file headers. > Further, I've signed a copyright assignment for gnulib, so presumably > it's all copyright the FSF, so why all the canvassing to relicense > anyway? Sometimes, an author will object. > Can't someone speak for the FSF and relicense the code on its > behalf? Not as far as I know.
