Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 01:12:11AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On 2008-08-24 20:36, Luk Claes wrote: > > I guess bug submitters and/or patch providers would also count as > > contributor? #417310 - patch by Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All of my contributions to the release notes

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Hi, Op Sun 24 Aug 2008 om 07:00:56 +0200 schreef W. Martin Borgert: > Somehow Luk managed to make me say "OK, I'll collect the release > notes" for lenny. That's DebConf before the first coffee. At > this moment I was not aware of the license issue: There is > currently no license. The practical i

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:55:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > > > But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to > > > > prove that the stuff they co

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > > But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to > > > prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first > > > place as well as n

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to > > prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first > > place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently > > didn't have

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:42:12AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >>> Obviously the implicit copyright "all rights reserved" would apply by >>> default, >>> but given that all contributions were explicitly published by all of the >>> authors, I think that considering the work

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:42:12AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > Obviously the implicit copyright "all rights reserved" would apply by > > default, > > but given that all contributions were explicitly published by all of the > > authors, I think that considering the work to be released into

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On 2008-08-25 23:36, Josip Rodin wrote: > Why do I have to be on top of the list of copyright mischief?! ;) Your name is the first in the author list :~) > Obviously the implicit copyright "all rights reserved" would apply by default, > but given that all contributions were explicitly published b

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 07:00:56PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > I ask hereby - and in private mails following this one - all > authors of the release notes to place their contribution to the > release notes under the GNU General Public license (version 2 or > higher) by an GPG-signed e-mail to

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

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'

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Hi, On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 01:12:11AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On 2008-08-24 20:36, Luk Claes wrote: > > I guess bug submitters and/or patch providers would also count as > > contributor? > > Yes. There are 16 bugs with a "patch" tag: > > #404891 - patch by Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROT

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:19:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 07:00:56PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > I ask hereby - and in private mails following this one - all > > authors of the release notes to place their contribution to the > > release notes under the GNU G

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 02:45:50AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > From , we have > > these contributors not listed in your mail: > > - Daniel Nylander > Swedish translation. Translations being copyrightable works in their own righ

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On 2008-08-24 12:19, Steve Langasek wrote: > I was a release note editor for the last release only; my contributions are > far less than those of many others on that list, it's not really fair to > call me a "main" author... OK. > Legally, there is no reason to require GPG-signed email; and there

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On 2008-08-24 20:36, Luk Claes wrote: > I guess bug submitters and/or patch providers would also count as > contributor? Yes. There are 16 bugs with a "patch" tag: #404891 - patch by Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> #339081, #363056 - Japanese translation fixes by Kobayashi Noritada <[EMAIL

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 07:00:56PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Somehow Luk managed to make me say "OK, I'll collect the release > notes" for lenny. That's DebConf before the first coffee. At > this moment I was not aware of the license issue: There is > currently no license. The practical imp

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Somehow Luk managed to make me say "OK, I'll collect the release > notes" for lenny. That's DebConf before the first coffee. At > this moment I was not aware of the license issue: There is > currently no license. The practical impact is probably small, > but I really want

Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Somehow Luk managed to make me say "OK, I'll collect the release notes" for lenny. That's DebConf before the first coffee. At this moment I was not aware of the license issue: There is currently no license. The practical impact is probably small, but I really want to solve the issue now. The bug re