Re: annoying glib licencing stuff
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:00 +0200, Mathieu Lacage wrote: I understand that this might not be high on the todo list of the gtk+ developers but I would appreciate an answer to that email. Most of the initial glib 1.x documentation was written by me, plus Sebastian Wilhelmi wrote the Threads section and Havoc Pennington wrote the Date Time section. I don't know much about the documentation for 2.x but I would think that only a handful of people wrote significant amounts (i.e. whole sections). (For a list of people who submitted docs for the Reference Documentation Project do 'cvs co -D 2005-01-01 gtk-web/rdp/status.html') Damon ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: annoying glib licencing stuff
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:00 +0200, Mathieu Lacage wrote: I understand that this might not be high on the todo list of the gtk+ developers but I would appreciate an answer to that email. Sorry, GUADEC interfered... regards, Mathieu On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 13:57 +0200, Mathieu Lacage wrote: On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 09:49 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: The problem with making the license for the gtk and glib api docs more explicit is that we currently don't have a list of contributors. Someone will have to sit down with cvs annotate and produce such a list, before we can contact all contributors to ask for their agreement on whatever license we want to put in the docs. Here is the list of contributors which was built out of: - cvs commits in all the files contained under the docs directory by various cvs users who have an account. - cvs log messages for all the files contained under the docs directory which reference some else than the commiter. Thanks for doing this work, Mathieu I am pretty convinced it is extremely inclusive (i.e., I am pretty sure I did not miss anyone) since I parsed each log at least 3 times. I propose to send a message to each of these people along the following lines. This should clear up the licensing issue. I don't really know what to do once this information has been gathered. Specifically, I thing we need to: - add proper licensing information at the top of each documentation (glib and gobject documents) which should be a matter of copying the licensing statement at the start of the bookinfo statement. - add proper credit to those who contributed: it would be nice to add a small list somewhere in the documentation, probably another chapter at the end of the documentation. It would be nice if there was a way to ensure that these lists are maintained when a patch from someone is applied. Sounds like a good plan - add copyright statements: I have no idea on how to deal with this. It is pretty easy with source code: the copyright statement at the top of each source file is maintained by the contributors themselves. Maybe a similar solution with xml comments at the top of each file would be a first step. I think the license also requires a copyright statement to appear next to the license statement. I have no idea what this statement should contain. Should it simply be a list of the copyright statements located at the top of each file ? I don't know. Comments are welcome. I don't know either, unfortunately. The copyright situation is further complicated by the fact that parts of the documentation are extracted from the sources, I guess. Hi XXX, We are trying to clear up the licensing status of the glib documentation and the cvs logs show that you have directly or indirectly contributed to this part of glib. We would appreciate if you could take a few minutes to answer the few questions below. 1) Have you really contributed to the glib documentation ? If so, how big was that contribution ? - a few typos - more than a few typos 2) If you have contributed more than a few typos to the glib documentation, we need to know who owns the copyright on your contribution. If you contributed this work as a part of your daytime payed job, then your employer most likely owns that copyright and we need to know who that is. Otherwise, you most likely own that copyright and we need to know this. 3) If you have contributed more than a few typos to the glib documentation, we need you to confirm that the copyright holder identified in (2) has accepted the glib documentation license. A copy of that license is available there: http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/glib/docs/reference/COPYING?view=markup Do you confirm that your contribution follows this license ? - yes - no Looks good to me. And for the parts of the docs written by me, the answer is yes. Matthias ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: annoying glib licencing stuff
I don't think I have copyright on anything in the docs part of glib. If I do, let it hereby be in the public domain. M. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: annoying glib licencing stuff
Hi Mathieu, hi, I received a patch from a user of the gobject documentation I wrote a while so I spent a while integrating his typo fixes in the glib cvs HEAD repository. The attached patch (typos.patch) which I have not yet committed contains his fixes and a few other typo fixes I had lying around. Am I allowed, to check in myself without prior approval patches which touch only the docs/reference/gobject/tut_*.xml files ? I guess the typo.patch needs no discussion and should be commited right away. I must say that I am a bit annoyed by two things about the current state of cvs HEAD: - the list of contributors has disappeared from the documentation. While I don't mind moving it to some place less visible than it was before, I would like to keep it in the xml. - my copyright as well as my name have disappeared from the source xml and are not visible anywhere in the source tree despite what the license it was released under requires (see docs/reference/COPYING). Good point! IMHO all gtk-docs should have an appendix with sections such as licence, contributors, etc. I would be happy if someone could approve the other patch attached (license.patch): - re-add the list of contributors in a separate chapter at the end of the gobject-doc.sgml file. - add a copyright statement at the top of gobject-doc.sgml including me and the other major contributors. I have no idea who the other major contributors are for the parts of the document I did not write and the parts which are automatically extracted from the source code so I did put only my name there. (adding more is a matter of adding a copyright tag with its year and holder tags) regards, Mathieu Ciao Stefan ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: annoying glib licencing stuff
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 09:49 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: I would be happy if someone could approve the other patch attached (license.patch): - re-add the list of contributors in a separate chapter at the end of the gobject-doc.sgml file. - add a copyright statement at the top of gobject-doc.sgml including me and the other major contributors. I have no idea who the other major contributors are for the parts of the document I did not write and the parts which are automatically extracted from the source code so I did put only my name there. (adding more is a matter of adding a copyright tag with its year and holder tags) The problem with making the license for the gtk and glib api docs more explicit is that we currently don't have a list of contributors. Someone will have to sit down with cvs annotate and produce such a list, before we can contact all contributors to ask for their agreement on whatever license we want to put in the docs. _my_ documentation was clearly and unambiguously contributed to the gnome cvs module gobject-doc under that license: I did send at least one email stating this here and proper licensing/copyright statements are present in that module. It appears that this constraint has not been taken into account (i.e., the license was violated since at least the copyright statements were removed) when the documentation was imported in glib's docs and I am somewhat guilty for not realizing this sooner. If what you say is true, that is, there is a need for some archeology to find all contributors and get licensing statements out of them, I suggest we follow the following actions: 1) mark the specific xml files for which you know the copyright/licensing status with xml comments stating these. Something similar to the standard large licensing comments found in any .c or .h file. 2) send emails to potential contributors asking for a licensing statement and mark their .xml files with comments similar to 1) saying that the copyright and licensing status of that file is unknown. 3) state in the documentation in a way which is visible to the end- developers that parts of that documentation are covered by license X, copyright Y, and that the rest of the documentation is currently under unknown status. regards, Mathieu -- ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
