On 2008-08-24 23:54, Steve Langasek wrote: > Translations being copyrightable works in their own right, their authors > should be asked to ratify the GPLv2 license to give us the best chance of > reusing material; or is there another reason you mention here that he's a > translator?
Of course, it's just to sort out who did what in case we cannot reach one or the other person in question and would have to remove something. > Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that these are two > names for the same person? Both names appear independently in the commit > messages. That was an cut and paste error on my side. One reviewed a change of the other and both contributed multiple times. > So although there may > be some false positives here (because I didn't check each commit to confirm > that there were substantive changes), everyone on this list is a person > whose name was mentioned in a commit log for a change which is still part of > the current version. Ah, OK. > Hmm, I didn't notice until now that you were asking for GPLv2 "or later". > The original licensing proposal for this bug was GPLv2 only. Is the "or > later" licensing something that you think is important? Given that the release notes will survive some more releases, GPL2+ would give us the chance to go for a later GPL version, if we feel the need. Currently, GPL2 is OK, of course. I have no strong opinion about this point and would agree to about any DFSG-free license for the release notes :~) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
