Re: csound manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 04:49:11PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: 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. Good. Let's include that in debian/copyright. I suspect, however, that This version of the Csound Manual does not cover the complete work. You mentioned yourself in the earlier non-DEP5 copyright file that some parts were GPL (or was it LGPL?). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 02:45, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: From PrefaceCopy.html: This version of the Csound Manual (The Canonical Csound Manual) is released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Good. Let's include that in debian/copyright. I suspect, however, that This version of the Csound Manual does not cover the complete work. You mentioned yourself in the earlier non-DEP5 copyright file that some parts were GPL (or was it LGPL?). Some helper scripts are GPL or LGPL, like the one to convert csd files to docbook xml for inclusion in the manual. The rest is all GFDL. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:28, Felipe Sateler fsate...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 02:45, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: From PrefaceCopy.html: This version of the Csound Manual (The Canonical Csound Manual) is released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Good. Let's include that in debian/copyright. And how to put that? The idea is to make it clear that statement comes from upstream. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On 01/07/10 11:02, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:28:28AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 02:45, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: From PrefaceCopy.html: This version of the Csound Manual (The Canonical Csound Manual) is released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Good. Let's include that in debian/copyright. I suspect, however, that This version of the Csound Manual does not cover the complete work. You mentioned yourself in the earlier non-DEP5 copyright file that some parts were GPL (or was it LGPL?). Some helper scripts are GPL or LGPL, like the one to convert csd files to docbook xml for inclusion in the manual. The rest is all GFDL. Do upstream explicitly state so somehwere (which we can then quote), or how do you come to the conclusion that rest is all GFDL? Hmm, I don't think so. However, the tarball contains 2 things. The manual and helper scripts. The manual is GFDL and the helper scripts each have an explicit license statement. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:48:38PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 01/07/10 11:02, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:28:28AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 02:45, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: From PrefaceCopy.html: This version of the Csound Manual (The Canonical Csound Manual) is released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Good. Let's include that in debian/copyright. I suspect, however, that This version of the Csound Manual does not cover the complete work. You mentioned yourself in the earlier non-DEP5 copyright file that some parts were GPL (or was it LGPL?). Some helper scripts are GPL or LGPL, like the one to convert csd files to docbook xml for inclusion in the manual. The rest is all GFDL. Do upstream explicitly state so somehwere (which we can then quote), or how do you come to the conclusion that rest is all GFDL? Hmm, I don't think so. However, the tarball contains 2 things. The manual and helper scripts. The manual is GFDL and the helper scripts each have an explicit license statement. Easy to then ask upstream for a statement that all parts of the tarball except those parts explicitly noted as GPL or LGPL. IMO not acceptable to assume as-is, due to the many participants involved. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:43:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: I'm sorry if I'm being annoying with this thing, but I'm trying to really understand the issue here. On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:49, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and others into the 35 or so names (and others)? Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document that. Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part, but the story is. Do not explain to me, but to the world. Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with DFSG-freeness. The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG free. Copyright years and names are a different matter. They go together: Only the copyright holder can rightfully grant a license. So if copyright holders are not properly accounted for, licensing is bogus! So your point is that, if we do not know exactly who wrote what, we need to find out a way to make sure all contributors have made the software available under the advertised license? Almost. If, as I understand from you, we are unable to get an explicit statement from upstream who is copyright holders of all parts of their distributed sources, then we should do the second best of listing who it might be, and documenting why the information is vague - and we should then discuss with debian-le...@lists.debian.org if such info is acceptable. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 05:23, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:43:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: I'm sorry if I'm being annoying with this thing, but I'm trying to really understand the issue here. On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:49, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and others into the 35 or so names (and others)? Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document that. Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part, but the story is. Do not explain to me, but to the world. Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with DFSG-freeness. The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG free. Copyright years and names are a different matter. They go together: Only the copyright holder can rightfully grant a license. So if copyright holders are not properly accounted for, licensing is bogus! So your point is that, if we do not know exactly who wrote what, we need to find out a way to make sure all contributors have made the software available under the advertised license? Almost. If, as I understand from you, we are unable to get an explicit statement from upstream who is copyright holders of all parts of their distributed sources, This is true. then we should do the second best of listing who it might be, and documenting why the information is vague - and we should then discuss with debian-le...@lists.debian.org if such info is acceptable. OK. I'll update debian/copyright with this info. It will be a brief summary of the history page, and a list of all known contributors. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:24:11AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 05:23, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:43:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: I'm sorry if I'm being annoying with this thing, but I'm trying to really understand the issue here. On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:49, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and others into the 35 or so names (and others)? Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document that. Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part, but the story is. Do not explain to me, but to the world. Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with DFSG-freeness. The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG free. Copyright years and names are a different matter. They go together: Only the copyright holder can rightfully grant a license. So if copyright holders are not properly accounted for, licensing is bogus! So your point is that, if we do not know exactly who wrote what, we need to find out a way to make sure all contributors have made the software available under the advertised license? Almost. If, as I understand from you, we are unable to get an explicit statement from upstream who is copyright holders of all parts of their distributed sources, This is true. then we should do the second best of listing who it might be, and documenting why the information is vague - and we should then discuss with debian-le...@lists.debian.org if such info is acceptable. OK. I'll update debian/copyright with this info. It will be a brief summary of the history page, and a list of all known contributors. Excellent. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:18:26PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: OK, this is a draft of what I'm going to put in debian/copyright. Comments? The csound manual has a long and complicated history. You can read it in the manual itself. That history makes it impossible to pinpoint who did what changes where, and thus make accurate copyright claims. However, the licensing of the work is not at risk. The manual history has 2 main parts: prior to 2003 and afterwards. Before 2003, both csound and the csound manual were developed at MIT, and they had a restrictive non-commercial license. The licensing rights were with MIT. However, in 2003 MIT released the manual under the GFDL, and placed in a CVS repository in Sourceforge. Since then, all contributions have been made through the csound mailing list and cvs repository there. Many contributors will not be listed here, but all contributions have been made under the GFDL. I believe it is more proper to say that MIT were copyright holder rather than licensing rights were with MIT. If all parts from 2003 are now GFDL licensed, it seems irrelevant to me to clarify anything from back then. If all contributions not originating from MIT have been tracked using CVS at SourceForge, it should be possible to get a list of account names from there, to at least know how many unknown contributors we are talking about. If this is a large task, it might make sense to first ask debian-devel if such info is legally relevant or not. Do we have access to any documents upstream which supports the claim that all contributions have been made under the GFDL? Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:18:26PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: OK, this is a draft of what I'm going to put in debian/copyright. Comments? The csound manual has a long and complicated history. You can read it in the manual itself. That history makes it impossible to pinpoint who did what changes where, and thus make accurate copyright claims. However, the licensing of the work is not at risk. The manual history has 2 main parts: prior to 2003 and afterwards. Before 2003, both csound and the csound manual were developed at MIT, and they had a restrictive non-commercial license. The licensing rights were with MIT. However, in 2003 MIT released the manual under the GFDL, and placed in a CVS repository in Sourceforge. Since then, all contributions have been made through the csound mailing list and cvs repository there. Many contributors will not be listed here, but all contributions have been made under the GFDL. I believe it is more proper to say that MIT were copyright holder rather than licensing rights were with MIT. If all parts from 2003 are now GFDL licensed, it seems irrelevant to me to clarify anything from back then. So I could just start by saying the manual was released as GFDl by MIT in 2003? Looks good to me :) If all contributions not originating from MIT have been tracked using CVS at SourceForge, it should be possible to get a list of account names from there, to at least know how many unknown contributors we are talking about. If this is a large task, it might make sense to first ask debian-devel if such info is legally relevant or not. I have a list of commiters, and that list is contained in the list I have in my local copy of debian/copyright. However, a large number of contributions are made without commit access (for example, I might write to the mailing list proposing some wording for a certain opcode). Some of them have a thanks to note, but I think not all of them do. 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. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:11:39PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: If all contributions not originating from MIT have been tracked using CVS at SourceForge, it should be possible to get a list of account names from there, to at least know how many unknown contributors we are talking about. If this is a large task, it might make sense to first ask debian-devel if such info is legally relevant or not. I have a list of commiters, and that list is contained in the list I have in my local copy of debian/copyright. However, a large number of contributions are made without commit access (for example, I might write to the mailing list proposing some wording for a certain opcode). Some of them have a thanks to note, but I think not all of them do. Well, I believe it was you who insisted on treating all contributors as copyright holders. ;-) What makes sense to me is that we only deal with explicitly claimed copyright holders and their properly licensed code. Yes, at least in the danish jurisdiction there is an implicit ownership as well, but what I suggest (and I believe that is the common approach in Debian) is to ignore implicit ownership - and if that means some of the code lack an owner who licensed the code to us then too bad: then we choose to not redistribute that piece of code. ...something along that I would expect you to get as response too if/when asking debian-le...@. Problem here - if I understand you correctly - is that we have noone claiming to be a copyright holder generally for the CSound manual. What makes most sense to me is actually to tell upstream that we cannot redistribute their manual without them explicitly stating a) who are the copyright holders (which might not be the same as those who wrote it - some contributors might have chosen to transfer ownership) and b) how each and every one of those copyright holders have licensed their contributions. 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. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 15:54, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:04:32PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:57, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:11:39PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: If all contributions not originating from MIT have been tracked using CVS at SourceForge, it should be possible to get a list of account names from there, to at least know how many unknown contributors we are talking about. If this is a large task, it might make sense to first ask debian-devel if such info is legally relevant or not. I have a list of commiters, and that list is contained in the list I have in my local copy of debian/copyright. However, a large number of contributions are made without commit access (for example, I might write to the mailing list proposing some wording for a certain opcode). Some of them have a thanks to note, but I think not all of them do. Well, I believe it was you who insisted on treating all contributors as copyright holders. ;-) What makes sense to me is that we only deal with explicitly claimed copyright holders and their properly licensed code. Yes, at least in the danish jurisdiction there is an implicit ownership as well, but what I suggest (and I believe that is the common approach in Debian) is to ignore implicit ownership - and if that means some of the code lack an owner who licensed the code to us then too bad: then we choose to not redistribute that piece of code. ...something along that I would expect you to get as response too if/when asking debian-le...@. Problem here - if I understand you correctly - is that we have noone claiming to be a copyright holder generally for the CSound manual. What makes most sense to me is actually to tell upstream that we cannot redistribute their manual without them explicitly stating a) who are the copyright holders (which might not be the same as those who wrote it - some contributors might have chosen to transfer ownership) and b) how each and every one of those copyright holders have licensed their contributions. If this was common practice in debian, we would be left without the linux kernel. No. common practice means what is most often done, not what is always done. Can you cite examples of common practice? I cited the linux kernel because its the most obvious one. Oh, and I do not mean to say that upstream must explicitly list each and every copyright holder. Some claim that this team holds copyright, with this license. I just meant (in that last sentence above) to cover the possible case of ah, well, most files are licensed like this, so we simply assume that the rest are licensed similarly, even if the copyright holders are someone else). Hmm, there is no explicit copyright claim... I'll see what upstream says to that. 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. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 04:16:03PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 15:54, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:04:32PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:57, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:11:39PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:01, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: If all contributions not originating from MIT have been tracked using CVS at SourceForge, it should be possible to get a list of account names from there, to at least know how many unknown contributors we are talking about. If this is a large task, it might make sense to first ask debian-devel if such info is legally relevant or not. I have a list of commiters, and that list is contained in the list I have in my local copy of debian/copyright. However, a large number of contributions are made without commit access (for example, I might write to the mailing list proposing some wording for a certain opcode). Some of them have a thanks to note, but I think not all of them do. Well, I believe it was you who insisted on treating all contributors as copyright holders. ;-) What makes sense to me is that we only deal with explicitly claimed copyright holders and their properly licensed code. Yes, at least in the danish jurisdiction there is an implicit ownership as well, but what I suggest (and I believe that is the common approach in Debian) is to ignore implicit ownership - and if that means some of the code lack an owner who licensed the code to us then too bad: then we choose to not redistribute that piece of code. ...something along that I would expect you to get as response too if/when asking debian-le...@. Problem here - if I understand you correctly - is that we have noone claiming to be a copyright holder generally for the CSound manual. What makes most sense to me is actually to tell upstream that we cannot redistribute their manual without them explicitly stating a) who are the copyright holders (which might not be the same as those who wrote it - some contributors might have chosen to transfer ownership) and b) how each and every one of those copyright holders have licensed their contributions. If this was common practice in debian, we would be left without the linux kernel. No. common practice means what is most often done, not what is always done. Can you cite examples of common practice? I cited the linux kernel because its the most obvious one. You did not cite the Linux kernel, you just claimed that the Linux kernel did not fit the scheme I described. And no, I also simply claim that I believe that scheme to be common practice. I cannot cite e.g. sections of Debian Policy or similar. Feel free to disagree with me. Oh, and I do not mean to say that upstream must explicitly list each and every copyright holder. Some claim that this team holds copyright, with this license. I just meant (in that last sentence above) to cover the possible case of ah, well, most files are licensed like this, so we simply assume that the rest are licensed similarly, even if the copyright holders are someone else). Hmm, there is no explicit copyright claim... I'll see what upstream says to that. 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. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 17:19, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:44:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT held the rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did what change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the Andres Cabrera and others to a list of 35 names and still have the and others. I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright, then. Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if possible without laying it all out) How to do that in the dep5 format? [Whoops, I forgot to comment on the above...] DEP-5 mandates some sections and the naming of those mandated sections. Trick is, it permits other fields too, and does not even (in most recent drafts) limit those to e.g. X-* names. The idea is, I believe (and I think it is even mentioned in the specification - too lazy to check right now) is perhaps some unofficial add-on sections becomes common practice and can then easily (i.e. without need of updating existing files using it) be adopted in a later release of the specs. See e.g. the moin package for how I currently do unofficial tags similar to what might be done here. We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and others into the 35 or so names (and others)? -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:03, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:34:18PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 17:19, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:44:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT held the rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did what change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the Andres Cabrera and others to a list of 35 names and still have the and others. I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright, then. Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if possible without laying it all out) How to do that in the dep5 format? [Whoops, I forgot to comment on the above...] DEP-5 mandates some sections and the naming of those mandated sections. Trick is, it permits other fields too, and does not even (in most recent drafts) limit those to e.g. X-* names. The idea is, I believe (and I think it is even mentioned in the specification - too lazy to check right now) is perhaps some unofficial add-on sections becomes common practice and can then easily (i.e. without need of updating existing files using it) be adopted in a later release of the specs. See e.g. the moin package for how I currently do unofficial tags similar to what might be done here. We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and others into the 35 or so names (and others)? Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document that. Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part, but the story is. Do not explain to me, but to the world. Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with DFSG-freeness. The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG free. Copyright years and names are a different matter. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:31:39PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:03, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:34:18PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 17:19, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:44:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT held the rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did what change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the Andres Cabrera and others to a list of 35 names and still have the and others. I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright, then. Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if possible without laying it all out) How to do that in the dep5 format? [Whoops, I forgot to comment on the above...] DEP-5 mandates some sections and the naming of those mandated sections. Trick is, it permits other fields too, and does not even (in most recent drafts) limit those to e.g. X-* names. The idea is, I believe (and I think it is even mentioned in the specification - too lazy to check right now) is perhaps some unofficial add-on sections becomes common practice and can then easily (i.e. without need of updating existing files using it) be adopted in a later release of the specs. See e.g. the moin package for how I currently do unofficial tags similar to what might be done here. We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and others into the 35 or so names (and others)? Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document that. Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part, but the story is. Do not explain to me, but to the world. Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with DFSG-freeness. The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG free. Copyright years and names are a different matter. They go together: Only the copyright holder can rightfully grant a license. So if copyright holders are not properly accounted for, licensing is bogus! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
I'm sorry if I'm being annoying with this thing, but I'm trying to really understand the issue here. On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 20:49, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: We only have detailed copyright information for the few scripts we already have documented. What do you propose to do? Expand the Andres Cabrera and others into the 35 or so names (and others)? Whatever it is that you believe makes this package DFSG-free, document that. Above you argue to me that the concrete names are not the important part, but the story is. Do not explain to me, but to the world. Hmm. I believe you are confusing copyright assignment with DFSG-freeness. The license is GFDL with no cover texts, so it is DFSG free. Copyright years and names are a different matter. They go together: Only the copyright holder can rightfully grant a license. So if copyright holders are not properly accounted for, licensing is bogus! So your point is that, if we do not know exactly who wrote what, we need to find out a way to make sure all contributors have made the software available under the advertised license? -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 20:21, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:14:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:12, Felipe Sateler fsate...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: Please see http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceHistory.html for a short summary of the csound manual. And BTW, there is code in debian/rules that parses that page to generate a non exhaustive list of contributors. It is currently commented out, though. It is in common-post-build-indep. I lost you here. What is it you are trying to say? You insist that it is ok to cover most authors as and others instead of listing their names explicitly in debian/copyright, yet you ask me to go investigate the details. Why? Sorry for being confusing. I have to admit I was very unclear. The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT held the rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did what change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the Andres Cabrera and others to a list of 35 names and still have the and others. And BTW, the code is broken :p. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 20:21, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:14:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:12, Felipe Sateler fsate...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: Please see http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceHistory.html for a short summary of the csound manual. And BTW, there is code in debian/rules that parses that page to generate a non exhaustive list of contributors. It is currently commented out, though. It is in common-post-build-indep. I lost you here. What is it you are trying to say? You insist that it is ok to cover most authors as and others instead of listing their names explicitly in debian/copyright, yet you ask me to go investigate the details. Why? Sorry for being confusing. I have to admit I was very unclear. The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT held the rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did what change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the Andres Cabrera and others to a list of 35 names and still have the and others. I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright, then. Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if possible without laying it all out). And not all contributors are relevant, only those claiming copyright. And BTW, the code is broken :p. How so? Something I did? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 20:21, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:14:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:12, Felipe Sateler fsate...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: Please see http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceHistory.html for a short summary of the csound manual. And BTW, there is code in debian/rules that parses that page to generate a non exhaustive list of contributors. It is currently commented out, though. It is in common-post-build-indep. I lost you here. What is it you are trying to say? You insist that it is ok to cover most authors as and others instead of listing their names explicitly in debian/copyright, yet you ask me to go investigate the details. Why? Sorry for being confusing. I have to admit I was very unclear. The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT held the rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did what change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the Andres Cabrera and others to a list of 35 names and still have the and others. I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright, then. Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if possible without laying it all out) How to do that in the dep5 format? . And not all contributors are relevant, only those claiming copyright. I believe this is wrong. Authors have copyright have they explicitly claimed it or not. And BTW, the code is broken :p. How so? Something I did? No, merely the page changed so the sed invocation was not correct. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:44:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important part is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT held the rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did what change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the Andres Cabrera and others to a list of 35 names and still have the and others. I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright, then. Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if possible without laying it all out) How to do that in the dep5 format? [Whoops, I forgot to comment on the above...] DEP-5 mandates some sections and the naming of those mandated sections. Trick is, it permits other fields too, and does not even (in most recent drafts) limit those to e.g. X-* names. The idea is, I believe (and I think it is even mentioned in the specification - too lazy to check right now) is perhaps some unofficial add-on sections becomes common practice and can then easily (i.e. without need of updating existing files using it) be adopted in a later release of the specs. See e.g. the moin package for how I currently do unofficial tags similar to what might be done here. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:12, Felipe Sateler fsate...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: Please see http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceHistory.html for a short summary of the csound manual. And BTW, there is code in debian/rules that parses that page to generate a non exhaustive list of contributors. It is currently commented out, though. It is in common-post-build-indep. -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:59:35PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 16:51, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: You write to me personally, even though the packaging has now moved to the Multimedia team. Was that intentional? No, it was not. Just force of habit, i think. :-) On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:35:27PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:44, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 01:37:28PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: May I ask you update that please? I updated the manual to version 5.12 a couple of weeks ago, the changes are in the git repository. Maybe then we can release the updated manual? Updated now. But please check the changes to copyright_hints, like this: QUILT_PATCHES=debian/patches quilt push -a DEB_MAINTAINER_MODE=1 debian/rules pre-build DEB_MAINTAINER_MODE=1 fakeroot debian/rules clean QUILT_PATCHES=debian/patches quilt pop -a mv debian/copyright_newhints debian/copyright_hints git diff --color-words ...or however you want to do the last part. It seems at least Michael Gogins has newly appeared. Michael Gogins has since a long time authored manual entries. He just appeared in the copyright hints, it seems. How do you mean he just appeared? That he is really not a copyright holder and it is wrong that his name appeared there? He just appeared in some file, thus detected by the copyright script. He appeared as a copyright holder, I believe, so something that we should document IMHO: Copyright 2004-2005 by Michael Gogins for modifications made to the Alternative Csound Reference Manual ...except off course if that mentioned Alternative Csound Reference Manual is not at all included in any of our source or binary packages. However, note that currently we have everything as copyright Andres Cabrera and others. Upstream is not really thorough in tracking copyrights, so trying to work out which file was authored by which set of people is not something I think is a reasonable use of anyone's time. I don't find it acceptable for us to just use the joker term and others as upstram author. If we cannot locate upstream authors, then we cannot locate the ones granting us the free license, which means we really did not receive that license and cannot redistribute. And did you check thoroughly? I just mentioned his name as an example - I believe there were more differences than that. There are many new files, and I do not track each one to see if a new copyright holder appears. However, I do follow upstream's list, and the license has not changed for the manual, which means contributions to the manual are licensed as GFDL. Upstream are in a different position than us. Them choosing to be more relaxed in how they express copyright and licensing does not permit us to do the same. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: csound manual
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:59:35PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 16:51, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: You write to me personally, even though the packaging has now moved to the Multimedia team. Was that intentional? No, it was not. Just force of habit, i think. :-) On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:35:27PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:44, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 01:37:28PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: May I ask you update that please? I updated the manual to version 5.12 a couple of weeks ago, the changes are in the git repository. Maybe then we can release the updated manual? Updated now. But please check the changes to copyright_hints, like this: QUILT_PATCHES=debian/patches quilt push -a DEB_MAINTAINER_MODE=1 debian/rules pre-build DEB_MAINTAINER_MODE=1 fakeroot debian/rules clean QUILT_PATCHES=debian/patches quilt pop -a mv debian/copyright_newhints debian/copyright_hints git diff --color-words ...or however you want to do the last part. It seems at least Michael Gogins has newly appeared. Michael Gogins has since a long time authored manual entries. He just appeared in the copyright hints, it seems. How do you mean he just appeared? That he is really not a copyright holder and it is wrong that his name appeared there? He just appeared in some file, thus detected by the copyright script. He appeared as a copyright holder, I believe, so something that we should document IMHO: Copyright 2004-2005 by Michael Gogins for modifications made to the Alternative Csound Reference Manual ...except off course if that mentioned Alternative Csound Reference Manual is not at all included in any of our source or binary packages. His name appears in a non exhaustive list, and it happens to appear because someone actually typed his real name instead of using the corresponding XML entity, which is normally used. However, note that currently we have everything as copyright Andres Cabrera and others. Upstream is not really thorough in tracking copyrights, so trying to work out which file was authored by which set of people is not something I think is a reasonable use of anyone's time. I don't find it acceptable for us to just use the joker term and others as upstram author. If we cannot locate upstream authors, then we cannot locate the ones granting us the free license, which means we really did not receive that license and cannot redistribute. The fact that I can't remember who did what does not mean that I have not enforced contributions to be GFDL. So your reasoning is wrong. Please see http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceHistory.html for a short summary of the csound manual. And did you check thoroughly? I just mentioned his name as an example - I believe there were more differences than that. There are many new files, and I do not track each one to see if a new copyright holder appears. However, I do follow upstream's list, and the license has not changed for the manual, which means contributions to the manual are licensed as GFDL. Upstream are in a different position than us. Them choosing to be more relaxed in how they express copyright and licensing does not permit us to do the same. In the current form, we are not in violation of the license. What do you mean we need to be more strict? -- 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
Re: csound manual
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:14:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:12, Felipe Sateler fsate...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:00, Jonas Smedegaard jo...@jones.dk wrote: Please see http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceHistory.html for a short summary of the csound manual. And BTW, there is code in debian/rules that parses that page to generate a non exhaustive list of contributors. It is currently commented out, though. It is in common-post-build-indep. I lost you here. What is it you are trying to say? You insist that it is ok to cover most authors as and others instead of listing their names explicitly in debian/copyright, yet you ask me to go investigate the details. Why? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
