Why are all the CLFS books covered by the Open Publication license? LFS itself is under MIT and a CC license, now. My understanding is that a license change on copyrighted works requires some kind of sign-off from all contributors, not just those who's names show up as holding a copyright on the book (which is a subset of the actual contributors who actually hold the copyrights).
Also, all books list a small number of people as claiming copyright on the book, as seen on the main index page. This isn't really accurate since each contributor (some of which may not even show up in the git history due to historic changes from svn to git and cross over from LFS) actually owns the copyright on their contribution unless copyright assignment legal documents have been signed (which I'm almost positive is not the case). This seems wrong to me. Finally, on the embedded book, there's just a copyright and no mention of LFS anywhere any more (one of my recent commits removed the LFS attributions). Is this the right thing to do? Technically the embedded book is derived from CLFS which is derived from LFS. But it seems we've lost some of that derivation history. If bringing back attribution and the derived history is a good idea, how should it be done? What's the right way to fix (assuming it even needs fixing) this? I don't want to violate someone's copyright, assuming they're claiming copyright correctly, but I also don't want to use a license that's not really fit for the purpose. I also don't want to claim copyright incorrectly, which it seems all the CLFS books currently do. -Andrew _______________________________________________ Clfs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
