Debian Bug report logs - #332782
release-notes: Where's the license?

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: release-notes: Where's the license?

Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:26:45 +0200

Package: release-notes
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1

The Debian documentation policy (http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy) reads:

| All manuals of the Debian Documentation Project (DDP) will be released
| under DFSG-compliant licenses

On the other hand the _Release Notes_ seem to be released with no
license at all (that means "All Rights Reserved", under current
copyright laws!).

_Release Notes_ should be licensed in a DFSG-free manner: for instance
under the GNU GPL v2 license.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.31
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

Message #12 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:32:54 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi, could you please explain why this bug has been granted an
etch-ignore tag?
Why is it "not meaningfully an RC bug for etch"?

Is Debian going to have a release with *non-free* release notes? 
*Another* one?!?


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:01:22 -0700

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 12:32:54AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Hi, could you please explain why this bug has been granted an
> etch-ignore tag?
> Why is it "not meaningfully an RC bug for etch"?

> Is Debian going to have a release with *non-free* release notes? 
> *Another* one?!?

First of all, the release notes are not packaged; Policy 2.2.1, which you
cited as the justification of your bug report, governs *packages* including
in the 'main' component of the archive.

Second, you've already cited, from http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy, a
statement of intent that the release notes will be released under a
DFSG-free license; and we have no reason to believe that the copyright
holders (who are, um... a bunch of Debian developers) have any intention to
do otherwise.  This is effectively a clarical error -- yes, it's unfortunate
that we don't have a clear statement of the conditions under which people
are allowed to reuse the release notes, but there is a clearly implicit
grant of reproduction rights, since we ship these release notes on the
Debian ISOs.

Third, there is simply no reason that we should delay the etch release while
each contributor is tracked down for sign-off on a licensing proposal.

If you want to see this bug resolved for etch, please:

- propose a license on the debian-doc list
- once a consensus is reached there, contact individual contributors to the
  release notes requesting a license grant

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Message #22 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:49:49 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:01:22 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 12:32:54AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Hi, could you please explain why this bug has been granted an
> > etch-ignore tag?
> > Why is it "not meaningfully an RC bug for etch"?
> 
> > Is Debian going to have a release with *non-free* release notes? 
> > *Another* one?!?
> 
> First of all, the release notes are not packaged; Policy 2.2.1, which
> you cited as the justification of your bug report, governs *packages*
> including in the 'main' component of the archive.

SC#2 states, in part:

|  When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
|  them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

I find it difficult to claim that the release notes, packaged or not,
are *not* a component of the Debian system...

BTW, why are the release notes not packaged?  I'm not sure this is a
good thing to keep as it is.

> 
> Second, you've already cited, from
> http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy, a statement of intent that the
> release notes will be released under a DFSG-free license; and we have
> no reason to believe that the copyright holders (who are, um... a
> bunch of Debian developers) have any intention to do otherwise.

But, as a matter of fact, this has not yet happened.

> This is effectively a clarical error

What do you mean by "clarical"?  I'm sorry to ask, but I am not an
English native speaker and no dictionary could help...

> -- yes, it's unfortunate that we don't
> have a clear statement of the conditions under which people are
> allowed to reuse the release notes, but there is a clearly implicit
> grant of reproduction rights, since we ship these release notes on the
> Debian ISOs.

Debian hardly (if ever) relies on implicit permission grants from
third parties: why others should rely on Debian Project's implicit
permission grants?

> 
> Third, there is simply no reason that we should delay the etch release
> while each contributor is tracked down for sign-off on a licensing
> proposal.

I filed the bug back on *October 2005*: there was plenty of time to
address the issue without any risk to delay the etch release.
Waiting for a release to be near and then tagging -ignore because
"we should not delay the release", sounds a bit awkward...

> 
> If you want to see this bug resolved for etch, please:
> 
> - propose a license on the debian-doc list

I already proposed the GNU GPL v2 in my original bug report, which
AFAICS has already been forwarded to debian-doc[1], since this list
is the maintainer of the release-notes pseudo-package.
We are currently talking on debian-doc, as well as on the bug log,
AFAICT.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2005/10/msg00021.html

> - once a consensus is reached there, contact individual contributors
> to the release notes requesting a license grant

Where can I find a comprehensive list of individual contributors
(whose contribution is creative enough to grant them a copyright
interest in the work)?
Are there any others besides the ones who are credited in the footer
of the contents page[2]?

[2] http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/i386/release-notes/index.en.html

For the record, the credited ones are:

  * Josip Rodin
  * Bob Hilliard
  * Adam Di Carlo
  * Anne Bezemer
  * Rob Bradford (current)
  * Frans Pop (current)
  * Andreas Barth (current)

Let's start collecting agreements on the licensing: each of the above
mentioned copyright holders, could you please tell (preferably with a
OpenPGP-signed reply) whether you agree to license your contribution
under the following terms?


  Copyright (c) $YEARSTART-$YEAREND  $NAME $EMAILADDRESS
  
  This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2,
  as published by the Free Software Foundation.
  
  This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
  but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
  GNU General Public License for more details.
  
  You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
  along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
  51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301, USA


Please indicate the relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address.


P.S.: please reply to <332782@bugs.debian.org> and Cc: me, as well;
      thanks.


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:21:10 -0700

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:49:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Second, you've already cited, from
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy, a statement of intent that the
> > release notes will be released under a DFSG-free license; and we have
> > no reason to believe that the copyright holders (who are, um... a
> > bunch of Debian developers) have any intention to do otherwise.

> But, as a matter of fact, this has not yet happened.

> > This is effectively a clarical error

> What do you mean by "clarical"?  I'm sorry to ask, but I am not an
> English native speaker and no dictionary could help...

clerical.  Sorry, typo.

> > -- yes, it's unfortunate that we don't
> > have a clear statement of the conditions under which people are
> > allowed to reuse the release notes, but there is a clearly implicit
> > grant of reproduction rights, since we ship these release notes on the
> > Debian ISOs.

> Debian hardly (if ever) relies on implicit permission grants from
> third parties:

That's not true.  Lots of patches are committed, by our upstreams and by our
developers, with only implicit grants.

> > - once a consensus is reached there, contact individual contributors
> > to the release notes requesting a license grant

> Where can I find a comprehensive list of individual contributors
> (whose contribution is creative enough to grant them a copyright
> interest in the work)?

> Are there any others besides the ones who are credited in the footer
> of the contents page[2]?

I would suggest also checking the cvs log for the repository.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Message #32 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:17:40 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:49:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > - once a consensus is reached there, contact individual contributors
> > to the release notes requesting a license grant
> 
> Where can I find a comprehensive list of individual contributors
> (whose contribution is creative enough to grant them a copyright
> interest in the work)?

It would have to be extracted from the CVS logs.

> Are there any others besides the ones who are credited in the footer
> of the contents page[2]?

Yes, many, most of them Debian developers (like myself) who modified the
sources.

> Let's start collecting agreements on the licensing: each of the above
> mentioned copyright holders, could you please tell (preferably with a
> OpenPGP-signed reply) whether you agree to license your contribution
> under the following terms?

I'm not that list, but I agree with licensing my contributions under those terms.

Javier

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #37 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:12:54 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:21:10 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:49:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > > This is effectively a clarical error
> 
> > What do you mean by "clarical"?  I'm sorry to ask, but I am not an
> > English native speaker and no dictionary could help...
> 
> clerical.  Sorry, typo.

Ah, understood: "an error made in copying or writing", dict says.
At any rate, it's a clerical error that has not yet been corrected...

[...]
> > Debian hardly (if ever) relies on implicit permission grants from
> > third parties:
> 
> That's not true.  Lots of patches are committed, by our upstreams and
> by our developers, with only implicit grants.

Ack (even though I think it would be far better to grant explicit
licenses for patches, especially when the work they are based on is
released under a non-copyleft license...).
However I feel that the two scenarios are not comparable: when someone
contributes a patch to be incorporated into a work, he/she can be
assumed to be OK with the license of the work.  On the other hand, a
completely new work (such as the release notes) is not so convincingly
implicitly licensed in a DFSG-free manner (under which specific license,
anyway?) just because the general Debian documentation policy states
that it will.

[...]
> > Where can I find a comprehensive list of individual contributors
> > (whose contribution is creative enough to grant them a copyright
> > interest in the work)?
> 
> > Are there any others besides the ones who are credited in the footer
> > of the contents page[2]?
> 
> I would suggest also checking the cvs log for the repository.

Well, I've just noticed that there's no link to the _Release Notes_
source from the dedicated page[3].
This should be fixed as well, I think.

[3] http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/releasenotes

I suppose I can find the source here[4], but I would need confirmation
before going on and possibly dig into the *wrong* source!!  ;-)
Even better: could you please suggest a command-line that I can use
to checkout the source?

[4] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?cvsroot=debian-doc

Any more practical way of getting the complete list of contributors?


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #42 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:24:33 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I suppose I can find the source here[4], but I would need confirmation
> before going on and possibly dig into the *wrong* source!!  ;-)
> Even better: could you please suggest a command-line that I can use
> to checkout the source?

Yes, that's the source. As for a command line to check out the source see
http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp

> [4] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?cvsroot=debian-doc
> 
> Any more practical way of getting the complete list of contributors?

Yes:
$  grep author release-notes.ent,v en/release-notes.en.sgml,v | 
   awk '{print $4}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
[ slightly edited, for clarity ]
     73 fjp      - Frans Pop
     43 jfs      - Javier Fernandez-Sanguino (me)
     36 robster  - Rob Bradford
     24 aba      - Andreas Barth
     19 jseidel  - Jens Seidel
      4 djpig    - Frank Lichtenheld 
      3 fbothamy - Frédéric Bothamy
      2 joy      - Josip Rodin
      1 spaillar - Simon Paillard
      1 barbier  - Denis Barbier

The number before the the (debian) login is the number of commits they made
to the source.

Regards

Javier

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #47 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:44:52 -0700

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:

> > I would suggest also checking the cvs log for the repository.

> Well, I've just noticed that there's no link to the _Release Notes_
> source from the dedicated page[3].
> This should be fixed as well, I think.

> [3] http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/releasenotes

> I suppose I can find the source here[4], but I would need confirmation
> before going on and possibly dig into the *wrong* source!!  ;-)
> Even better: could you please suggest a command-line that I can use
> to checkout the source?

> [4] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?cvsroot=debian-doc

  cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc co ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes

followed by 

  cvs log

within the checkout tree.

(and since it's cvs, you get a separate cvs log for every file in the tree,
yay crappy...)
 
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Message #52 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:45:55 -0700

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:24:33PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Yes:
> $  grep author release-notes.ent,v en/release-notes.en.sgml,v | 
>    awk '{print $4}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
> [ slightly edited, for clarity ]
>      73 fjp      - Frans Pop
>      43 jfs      - Javier Fernandez-Sanguino (me)
>      36 robster  - Rob Bradford
>      24 aba      - Andreas Barth
>      19 jseidel  - Jens Seidel
>       4 djpig    - Frank Lichtenheld 
>       3 fbothamy - Frédéric Bothamy
>       2 joy      - Josip Rodin
>       1 spaillar - Simon Paillard
>       1 barbier  - Denis Barbier

> The number before the the (debian) login is the number of commits they made
> to the source.

That won't be comprehensive though, because there are a limited number of
authorized committers who often commit changes contributed by others.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Message #57 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:48:11 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:24, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> $  grep author release-notes.ent,v en/release-notes.en.sgml,v |
>    awk '{print $4}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
> [ slightly edited, for clarity ]
>      73 fjp      - Frans Pop
>      43 jfs      - Javier Fernandez-Sanguino (me)
>      36 robster  - Rob Bradford
>      24 aba      - Andreas Barth
>      19 jseidel  - Jens Seidel
>       4 djpig    - Frank Lichtenheld
>       3 fbothamy - Frédéric Bothamy
>       2 joy      - Josip Rodin
>       1 spaillar - Simon Paillard
>       1 barbier  - Denis Barbier
>
> The number before the the (debian) login is the number of commits they
> made to the source.

Unfortunately committers are not the same as contributors. A lot more 
people have contributed text to the release notes through mails to the 
debian-doc mailing list and bug reports that were committed by the people 
who have edited the release notes.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #62 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jens Seidel <jensseidel@users.sf.net>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:16:59 +0100

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:45:55PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:24:33PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > Yes:
> > $  grep author release-notes.ent,v en/release-notes.en.sgml,v | 
> >    awk '{print $4}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
> 
> That won't be comprehensive though, because there are a limited number of
> authorized committers who often commit changes contributed by others.

In this case it can be assumed that the log entry contains the
contributor(s). At least I added this information always.

Jens

Message #67 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:31:28 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:45:55PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> That won't be comprehensive though, because there are a limited number of
> authorized committers who often commit changes contributed by others.
 
Contributors do not necessarily have (c) over the Release Notes, from my understanding,
only authors have copyrights and the Release Notes clearly lists who are the
main authors. It is my understanding that if any contributor wanted to assert
any influence over the license that the Release Notes uses he would first ask
to have his name added as an author (and, consequently, a (c) owner of the
text).

Just for the same reason we don't ask patch submitters in the BTS to sign a
(c) statement for packages we shouldn't be asking contributors sending
patches to the BTS (or committing them directly) to do the same for
documentation. Considering all contributors equal (regardless of "size"),
with all of them being copyright holders for the Release Notes and having
veto rights for a license change is insane. Anyway, if a license change was
properly announced beforehand contributors that feel that their rights are
violated would have ample time to express their concerns.

This bug has changed into exactly the same type of discussion that prevents
#388141 from being fixed any time soon, even though all the web pages have a
footer that says "this text is copyright SPI" and no contributor has ever
said that the copyright statement should be ammended to include *him*.

Regards

Javier

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #72 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:58:27 -0700

On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 01:31:28AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:45:55PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > That won't be comprehensive though, because there are a limited number of
> > authorized committers who often commit changes contributed by others.

> Contributors do not necessarily have (c) over the Release Notes, from my
> understanding, only authors have copyrights and the Release Notes clearly
> lists who are the main authors.

Sorry, that's incorrect.  A contributor has copyright over any contribution
they've made which is substantial enough to merit protection under copyright
law.  The line for "substantial enough" varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, but to be on the safe side we should probably treat any
contributions of a paragraph or more to be copyrightable and ask them.  And
if someone has contributed a translation of the release notes to another
language, that's *definitely* subject to its own copyright.

> It is my understanding that if any contributor wanted to assert any
> influence over the license that the Release Notes uses he would first ask
> to have his name added as an author (and, consequently, a (c) owner of the
> text).

Hmm, is this a convention that was prominently documented?  If we're going
to spend effort on fixing the license status, we might as well do it right,
and that would mean not making assumptions about implicit waivers of
copyright.

> Just for the same reason we don't ask patch submitters in the BTS to sign a
> (c) statement for packages we shouldn't be asking contributors sending
> patches to the BTS (or committing them directly) to do the same for
> documentation. Considering all contributors equal (regardless of "size"),
> with all of them being copyright holders for the Release Notes and having
> veto rights for a license change is insane.

Sorry, but that's the reality of copyright law.  If you disagree that the
contribution of a particular contributor is significant enough that they
should have veto rights over the license, then you can rewrite that part of
the documentation from scratch; if this is non-trivial, then that's a pretty
clear argument that their contribution is of value under copyright law...

> Anyway, if a license change was properly announced beforehand contributors
> that feel that their rights are violated would have ample time to express
> their concerns.

Are there really so many substantial contributors that it would be hard to
ask them all?

> This bug has changed into exactly the same type of discussion that prevents
> #388141 from being fixed any time soon, even though all the web pages have a
> footer that says "this text is copyright SPI" and no contributor has ever
> said that the copyright statement should be ammended to include *him*.

Well, sorry, but that's a bug in the documentation team's process for not
proactively requiring copyright disclaimers.  Well, I mean, you could argue
that it's a bug in copyright law, but we don't have the power to fix that
bug...

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Message #77 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:02:00 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:17:40 +0100 Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:

> 
> > Let's start collecting agreements on the licensing: each of the
> > above mentioned copyright holders, could you please tell (preferably
> > with a OpenPGP-signed reply) whether you agree to license your
> > contribution under the following terms?
> 
> I'm not that list, but I agree with licensing my contributions under
> those terms.

Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the
relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright
notice?

What do the other co-authors and contributors have to say about this
licensing?  Do you agree or disagree?
Please see the final part of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html
for the detailed question.

Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a
comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive
agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some
other contributors...   ;-)


[1] I've been hoping to send a collective thanks to the many people that
would answer to my question, but Javier seems to be the only responding
contributor, so far...  Not a good start for this licensing effort!  :-(


P.S.: please reply to <332782@bugs.debian.org> and Cc: me, as well;
      thanks.

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #82 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:37:24 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:02, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a
> comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive
> agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some
> other contributors...   ;-)

Why the hell not? You seem to be the person most interested in fixing 
this. Seems only logical to me that you do the work.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #87 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 01:47:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:02:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the
> relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright
> notice?

Hmm... as for names and e-mail addreses I think we need to dig that
information first. Years would be 1999-2007, they seem to have been first
written for slink (http://www.es.debian.org/releases/slink/#release-notes).
The DDP  CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003),
previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS.

> What do the other co-authors and contributors have to say about this
> licensing?  Do you agree or disagree?

Notice that many of the people listed as co-authors (such as Josip or Adam)
are no longer subscribed to -doc. Some of the past co-authors/contributors
might not even be Debian Developers (or contributors) anymore.

> Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a
> comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive
> agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some
> other contributors...   ;-)

I'm pretty sure most of the current editors agree with the licensing. They
are, however, right now out of time to cater this issue (we are trying to
release etch, after all). 

Digging into the CVS logs should not be that hard, in addition to the ones I
listed (editors), I find (in a cursory glance):

- Frédéric Bothamy
- Daniel Nylander
- Roberto C. Sánchez
- Clytie Siddall
- Frederik Schueler
- Frank Lichtenheld
- Adeodato Simón
- Nobuhiro IMAI
- Luk Cleas
- A. Mennucc
- Martin Michlmayr
- Osamu Asoki
- Steve Langasek 
- Jordi Polo

It is worth noting that:

a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore
b) Some of the patches they provided might be just "typo fixes" and not
actual text. I don't believe those grant one "co-author" status for a
document.

Additionally, references to bugs in the BTS should be reviewed, as some logs
refer to bugs which might have included a patch from the submitter.

Obtaining a contributors list from 1999-2003 might be more difficult,
however, and it still might be relevant.  For example, contents of the
following patch from Chris Tillman for woody's release notes seems to still
be present in etch's Release Notes:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2001/12/msg00023.html (sent and applied by
Rob Bradford)

The boot-floppies CVS (which held that information) seems not to be available
anymore (or at least I cannot find it in gluck). Does anyone keep a backup of
that one?

Regards

Javier

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #92 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 02:07:09 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 05:58:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Anyway, if a license change was properly announced beforehand contributors
> > that feel that their rights are violated would have ample time to express
> > their concerns.
> 
> Are there really so many substantial contributors that it would be hard to
> ask them all?

Can't tell for sure. But digging the information can be really hard, the
release notes have been written since 1999.

> > This bug has changed into exactly the same type of discussion that prevents
> > #388141 from being fixed any time soon, even though all the web pages have a
> > footer that says "this text is copyright SPI" and no contributor has ever
> > said that the copyright statement should be ammended to include *him*.
> 
> Well, sorry, but that's a bug in the documentation team's process for not
> proactively requiring copyright disclaimers.  Well, I mean, you could argue
> that it's a bug in copyright law, but we don't have the power to fix that
> bug...

You could say that the Release Notes were first in the "realm" of the
boot-floppies team (in its CVS) and, actually, were outside the scope of the
documentation team's.

Hmm... Now that I think of it, one could say that since the Release Notes
were originally part of the boot-floppies sources, and since the
boot-floppies were fully under the GPL (or so does their debian/copyright
file say) then the current Release Notes (derived work of that one) can only
be under the GPL license. Right?

I've just checked on archive.debian.org, slink's boot-floppies package
sources available at
http://archive.debian.org/dists/Debian-2.1/main/source/admin/boot-floppies_2.1.12.tar.gz
advertise themselves as being under the GPL. The debian/copyright file is
(more or less) unchanged in the different incarnations of the source. Even if
the SGML file in itself does not carry the license (like b-f's install manual
did, which got carried over to d-i's)

FWIW, in slink the RN were translated to Spanish, Finnish, French, German,
Czech, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Slovenian and Hungarian. So the
GPL license would apply to those too (and to Catalonian and Danish)

Regards

Javier

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #97 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:11:14 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:47:50AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:02:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the
> > relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright
> > notice?

> Hmm... as for names and e-mail addreses I think we need to dig that
> information first. Years would be 1999-2007, they seem to have been first
> written for slink (http://www.es.debian.org/releases/slink/#release-notes).
> The DDP  CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003),
> previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS.

FWIW, I think his question was about what years you personally have
copyright over the work.

For my part (now that I seem to have been made an editor and have to do this
too, pff), I'm fine to have any of my contributions to the release notes
distributed under the GPL v2.  My copyright information is:

 Copyright 2007 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

> - Adeodato Simón

Adeodato Simó

> - Luk Cleas

Luk Claes

> - A. Mennucc

proper name is "Andrea Mennucci", I never understood where that 'i'
disappeared to..

> - Jordi Polo

Jordà Polo

> a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore

'cvs annotate' should help with this, when cross-referenced with commit
logs.  I can help script something up to check all of this, but not until
after etch is out.

> b) Some of the patches they provided might be just "typo fixes" and not
> actual text. I don't believe those grant one "co-author" status for a
> document.

True.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #102 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jens Seidel <jensseidel@users.sf.net>

To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Cc: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 02:11:22 +0200

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:47:50AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:02:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the
> > relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright
> > notice?
> 
> The DDP  CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003),
> previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS.

Please note that there was at least one file system corruption which
affected also the CVS on the server. I'm sure most information could be
restored from backups, but honestly I doubt this is true for all
information.

Also note that CVS allows to change commit messages. There should be no
abuse of it, but it is at least technically possible to create fake
entries.

> It is worth noting that:
> 
> a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore

Do these persons still need to agree to a license change?

> The boot-floppies CVS (which held that information) seems not to be available
> anymore (or at least I cannot find it in gluck). Does anyone keep a backup of
> that one?

Oops, you're right. Debian admins probably have backups. IIRC Joey made
backups available in his home directory, don't know whether this is
still true.

Jens

Message #107 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:35:53 -0700

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:11:22AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> Also note that CVS allows to change commit messages. There should be no
> abuse of it, but it is at least technically possible to create fake
> entries.

That's not something we need to worry about in advance of a relicensing.

> > a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore

> Do these persons still need to agree to a license change?

No, they don't.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Message #112 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:42:15 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Sigh... I understand it is nice if we had copyright section .... but
after all this was "note".

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:47:50AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:02:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Thank you for agreeing to the licensing[1], could you please tell me the
> > relevant years, name and (optional) e-mail address, for the copyright
> > notice?
> 
> Hmm... as for names and e-mail addreses I think we need to dig that
> information first. Years would be 1999-2007, they seem to have been first
> written for slink (http://www.es.debian.org/releases/slink/#release-notes).
> The DDP  CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003),
> previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS.

First of all, I think whoever contributed to the "DEBIAN" release-note
was the one who implicitly agreed basic debian purpose and releasing
R-N is part of the objective we all agreed.

I know it is week argument but, at the same time, what is the likely
risk of someone suing Debian for the releasing R-N as clarified GPL2
doc.

> > What do the other co-authors and contributors have to say about this
> > licensing?  Do you agree or disagree?
> 
> Notice that many of the people listed as co-authors (such as Josip or Adam)
> are no longer subscribed to -doc. Some of the past co-authors/contributors
> might not even be Debian Developers (or contributors) anymore.
> 
> > Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to collect a
> > comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I first receive
> > agreements from an encouraging number of main credited authors and some
> > other contributors...   ;-)
> 
> I'm pretty sure most of the current editors agree with the licensing. They
> are, however, right now out of time to cater this issue (we are trying to
> release etch, after all). 
> 
> Digging into the CVS logs should not be that hard, in addition to the ones I
> listed (editors), I find (in a cursory glance):
> 
> - Frédéric Bothamy
> - Daniel Nylander
> - Roberto C. Sánchez
> - Clytie Siddall
> - Frederik Schueler
> - Frank Lichtenheld
> - Adeodato Simón
> - Nobuhiro IMAI
> - Luk Cleas
> - A. Mennucc
> - Martin Michlmayr
> - Osamu Asoki

"Osamu Aoki", I think.  I do not remember what I did.
I understand spelling name correctly is tough :-)

> - Steve Langasek 
> - Jordi Polo
> 
> It is worth noting that:
> 
> a) Their contributions might not be present in the current RN anymore
> b) Some of the patches they provided might be just "typo fixes" and not
> actual text. I don't believe those grant one "co-author" status for a
> document.
> 
> Additionally, references to bugs in the BTS should be reviewed, as some logs
> refer to bugs which might have included a patch from the submitter.
> 
> Obtaining a contributors list from 1999-2003 might be more difficult,
> however, and it still might be relevant.  For example, contents of the
> following patch from Chris Tillman for woody's release notes seems to still
> be present in etch's Release Notes:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2001/12/msg00023.html (sent and applied by
> Rob Bradford)
> 
> The boot-floppies CVS (which held that information) seems not to be available
> anymore (or at least I cannot find it in gluck). Does anyone keep a backup of
> that one?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Javier

If Francesco feels strong about this issue, he should at least put his
effort to send out licensing clarification notice to all involved with
contactable address and give us how they respond to the licensing
clarification to the GPL2 and move one.  If anyone object, they should
clarify what section they own copyright and, if they disagree, let them
or Francesco report to us about their position.  Then we remove that
section.

For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice.

Francesco, thanks for pointing out shortcomings but please think first
how to improve situation and put your effort rather than letting others
do lots of work for non-critical issue.  Sorry for strong word but if
you did what Javi did, I would have been a bit more positive.  I know
you feel strong about this issue but improving situation is best done by
coercion not finger pointing.

Regards,

Osamu

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #117 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:03:31 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:37:24 +0200 Frans Pop wrote:

> On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:02, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Obviously enough, I'm *not* going to dig into the CVS logs to
> > collect a comprehensive list of individual contributors, unless I
> > first receive agreements from an encouraging number of main credited
> > authors and some other contributors...   ;-)
> 
> Why the hell not? You seem to be the person most interested in fixing 
> this. Seems only logical to me that you do the work.

Frans, frankly speaking, I cannot understand your line of reasoning.

IANADD, I spotted a bug in the Debian Release Notes back in October
2005, I reported it to the Debian BTS, nothing seems to have been done
to fix it until March 2007; I am now trying to help in fixing it, but I
cannot fix it without cooperation from copyright holders (since the bug
under consideration is a licensing one).  I said that, before spending
my spare time (which is not so abundant, you know...) in digging into
lots of CVS logs, I would like to see agreements from at least the
easy-to-determine-and-reach copyright holders.  It seems reasonable to
me.  Your answer basically is "you care, you do all the work!".

Could you please avoid acting in such a discouraging manner and *say*
whether you actually agree or disagree to the licensing?
You already contributed twice to this discussion, but you haven't yet
said anything about your will (or lack thereof) to license your
copyrighted part of the Release Notes under the GNU GPL v2.
Please, see again the final part of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html
for the detailed question, and give an answer.


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #122 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

To: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:59:44 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:42:15PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sigh... I understand it is nice if we had copyright section .... but
> after all this was "note".

Well, now it's a document over 50 pages long (for most architectures,
anyway). So it should have its own license section.

> If Francesco feels strong about this issue, he should at least put his
> effort to send out licensing clarification notice to all involved with
> contactable address and give us how they respond to the licensing
> clarification to the GPL2 and move one. 

I think we only need to:

a) add the GPL license, as it should have had when it moved from b-f's CVS to
the DDP

b) ask those that might not be aware that the document is GPL (as it lacked a
copyright notice in the DDP CVS, but it had one in the main tarball when it
was part of the boot-floppies).

c) notify translators that they should be based on that license (some
translations should already have the license as they were part of the
original b-f CVS too)

> If anyone object, they should
> clarify what section they own copyright and, if they disagree, let them
> or Francesco report to us about their position.  Then we remove that
> section.

True. I don't expect anybody to disagree, however, but you never know.

> For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice.

Thanks.

Javier

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #127 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:12:19 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Friday 06 April 2007 23:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> a) add the GPL license, as it should have had when it moved from b-f's
> CVS to the DDP

Add the whole GPL licence with all translation problems that brings? 
Please not! Let's just have a simple statement and a reference to where 
the fill licence can be found. If that can't be done with the GPL, then 
let's please choose another DFSG compatible one.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #132 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 00:17:20 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:42:15 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:

[...]
> If Francesco feels strong about this issue, he should at least put his
> effort to send out licensing clarification notice to all involved with
> contactable address and give us how they respond to the licensing
> clarification to the GPL2 and move one.  If anyone object, they should
> clarify what section they own copyright and, if they disagree, let
> them or Francesco report to us about their position.  Then we remove
> that section.

That is more or less what I am planning to do, even though all this "you
do the work and then report back" is not really encouraging.
However, before moving on with this plan, I need to see whether there's
consensus at least among the copyright holders that are subscribed to
the debian-doc list: if one of the main co-authors objected to the
licensing, any effort in contacting all the individual contributors and
asking them to agree to the currently proposed licensing would be a
waste of time...

> 
> For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice.

Thanks.
I take it as an agreement to the licensing proposed in the final part of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html

Could you please determine the years in which you have contributed to
the Release Notes and tell me how you would want your copyright notice
look like?

Copyright $YEARS Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>

Which years?  With or without e-mail address?  With a different e-mail
address?

> 
> Francesco, thanks for pointing out shortcomings

You're welcome.

> but please think first
> how to improve situation and put your effort rather than letting
> others do lots of work for non-critical issue.

So far, it seems that many people want *me* to do lots of work...

> Sorry for strong word
> but if you did what Javi did, I would have been a bit more positive. 
> I know you feel strong about this issue but improving situation is
> best done by coercion not finger pointing.

I am not pointing fingers: I reported an issue, I am not the one who is
supposed to fix it (IANADD).  I am happy to help, but only as long as
other involved people act in a cooperative manner...

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #137 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

To: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 01:54:01 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2007 23:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > a) add the GPL license, as it should have had when it moved from b-f's
> > CVS to the DDP
> 
> Add the whole GPL licence with all translation problems that brings? 

Hmmm.. actually I should have said "add the GPL *disclaimer*" and not the
license itself.

Note that even the GPL *disclaimer* should have those "translation problems"
you might be thinking of. For example, see the disclaimer
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/index.en.html
(it uses a liberal way to refer to the GPL, not exactly what the "How to
apply these terms to your new programs" text from the GPL, as seen in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4, says)

Based on that disclaimer translations can include

a) the license in untranslated form
b) the translated license *if* it has been approved by the FSF 
c) an unapproved translated license, together with the original license

As there are no approved translations nobody should go to b)

In the French translation of that document, they go for the a) approach with
a twist (and additional disclaimer in French :), see:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/index.fr.html

I guess your comment is related to the discussion in d-i that changed how GPL
translations were handled (Message-id:
<200605011107.00116.elendil@planet.nl>, may 2006), but I think it's perfectly
OK to include just the GPL disclaimer and point to where the GPL is (maybe
provide it in the CDs/DVDs themselves?) instead of including the full GPL
license text in the document itself (as is done in d-i)

> Please not! Let's just have a simple statement and a reference to where 
> the fill licence can be found. 
      ^^^^
Full? 

In any case, your proposal was the same as mine, only mine was not properly
worded.

> If that can't be done with the GPL, then 
> let's please choose another DFSG compatible one.

We sure can't change the license. If we assume the document is GPL-licensed
(as it was part of b-f's codebase) then relicensing it would certainly mean
asking *all* copyright holders. Going back to all contributors from 1999 to
the present date is certainly not an option.

I believe the GPL disclaimer is OK, after all, but we might want to have the
debian-cd masters add the GPL itself in the same directory as the Release
Notes, so that we can point to it locally (and not in a remote URL).

Sounds like a good plan to you for (maybe) r1?

Regards

Javier

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #142 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>

To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:08:57 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:17:20AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:42:15 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > For the record, I sign up any DSFG compliant copyright notice.
> 
> Thanks.
> I take it as an agreement to the licensing proposed in the final part of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2007/03/msg00159.html

I do not know which one yet.  What I know is I agree with what ever
Frans nd/or Javi (will) think right.

> Could you please determine the years in which you have contributed to
> the Release Notes and tell me how you would want your copyright notice
> look like?

Sorry, we should have answer in CVS (I do not remember) but so far I
haven't found one yet there.

   http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?root=debian-doc

So far, I could not be able to find any code or text marked with my
account.  Javi, how did you come up with my name?  May be it was just
your guess.  Current checking script for translation version is now
completely yours.  Some text in installation guide (mouse section) may
be mine but non in R-N I remember ....

> > but please think first
> > how to improve situation and put your effort rather than letting
> > others do lots of work for non-critical issue.
> 
> So far, it seems that many people want *me* to do lots of work...

Yes.  I really do not undersand your thought on the volunteer project.

Do you expect others to do lots of work...?

It is fair for you to file a wishlist bug for clarification and it will
be appreciated.  But when you start requesting lots of work for lower
priority work urgently to other volunters, I am not quite sure it is
good idea or not.  

By all means, I appreciate Javi's lead on cleaning this up this loose
end.

Osamu

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #147 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>

To: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:49:07 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 10:08:57PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> So far, I could not be able to find any code or text marked with my
> account.  Javi, how did you come up with my name?  May be it was just
> your guess.  Current checking script for translation version is now
> completely yours.  Some text in installation guide (mouse section) may
> be mine but non in R-N I remember ....

There was a commit log message that said:
"Added some suggestions provided by Osamu Asoki improving some text and
segmenting recommendations" (revision 1.186, commited by myself) and
"Add Osamu's suggestion of mentioning screen when using ssh" (revision 1.185)

IIRC they all come from the patch you provided at #401317.

Regards

Javier

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #152 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:03:33 +0900

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 10:08:57PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > So far, I could not be able to find any code or text marked with my
> > account.  Javi, how did you come up with my name?  May be it was just
> > your guess.  Current checking script for translation version is now
> > completely yours.  Some text in installation guide (mouse section) may
> > be mine but non in R-N I remember ....
> 
> There was a commit log message that said:
> "Added some suggestions provided by Osamu Asoki improving some text and
> segmenting recommendations" (revision 1.186, commited by myself) and
> "Add Osamu's suggestion of mentioning screen when using ssh" (revision 1.185)

I now recall them.

> IIRC they all come from the patch you provided at #401317.

I see. Thanks.

Osamu

Message #157 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:25:54 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:08:57 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:17:20AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > So far, it seems that many people want *me* to do lots of work...
> 
> Yes.  I really do not undersand your thought on the volunteer project.
> 
> Do you expect others to do lots of work...?

Osamu, please realize that I am external to the Debian Project: I filed
a bug report, I am not the one who is primarily supposed to fix the
bug...
I understand that, in a volunteer project, things get done when it's
possible and by people most interested in getting them done.  On the
other hand, treating me as if I were responsible for the resolution of
this bug does *not* seem fair...

> 
> It is fair for you to file a wishlist bug for clarification and it
> will be appreciated.

We are already *inside* a bug log!
Since it's about a severe violation of Debian policy, it's a serious bug
(even though it was gratuitously granted an etch-ignore tag...).

> But when you start requesting lots of work for
> lower priority work

Lower priority?!?
Fixing RC bugs should not be considered as lower priority...

> urgently

Urgently?!?
I filed the bug report back on October 2005...

> to other volunters, I am not quite sure
> it is good idea or not.

I'm simply asking for some encouraging agreements to the licensing.
After that, I will be able to start digging in the CVS logs and building
a comprehensive list of individual copyright holders.
With such a list, I will be able to contact the copyright holders and
ask them to agree to the licensing.

> By all means, I appreciate Javi's lead on cleaning this up this loose
> end.

I appreciate *any* help on this issue.
Bickering is not helpful, though: let's stop doing so and move on
collecting agreements to the licensing so that this issue can be solved
for lenny!


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #162 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:44:14 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:03:33 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino
> Peña wrote:
[...]
> > IIRC they all come from the patch you provided at #401317.
> 
> I see. Thanks.

If I read the CVS-diffs[1][2] and the patch[3] by Osamu correctly, that
qualifies for a:
Copyright 2006 Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>

Is that right?


[1] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/en/release-notes.en.sgml?root=debian-doc&r1=1.184&r2=1.185&diff_format=h
[2] http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/en/release-notes.en.sgml?root=debian-doc&r1=1.185&r2=1.186&diff_format=h
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401317;msg=5;filename=diff.txt;att=1

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #167 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:28:50 -0700

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:42:15PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hmm... as for names and e-mail addreses I think we need to dig that
> > information first. Years would be 1999-2007, they seem to have been first
> > written for slink (http://www.es.debian.org/releases/slink/#release-notes).
> > The DDP  CVS only has the Release Notes since woody (january 2003),
> > previously they Release Notes resided in the boot-floppies' CVS.

> First of all, I think whoever contributed to the "DEBIAN" release-note
> was the one who implicitly agreed basic debian purpose and releasing
> R-N is part of the objective we all agreed.

This is true, but Debian is a big organization with room for many different
opinions about which licenses are "good", and we should be able to state
clearly to people who want to reuse content from our release notes, what the
license is that they're allowed to do so under.

> I know it is week argument but, at the same time, what is the likely
> risk of someone suing Debian for the releasing R-N as clarified GPL2
> doc.

Not very; but I don't think that removes our responsibility to set a good
example when it comes to treating the intellectual property of others with
respect, even when those "others" are part of Debian and we think we have a
good idea of what theri views are.

> > - Osamu Asoki

> "Osamu Aoki", I think.  I do not remember what I did.
> I understand spelling name correctly is tough :-)

Wow, sorry for not catching this in the list of misspellings, I do know your
name... :)

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Message #172 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jens Seidel <jensseidel@users.sf.net>

To: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Please explain the etch-ignore tag

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 20:49:37 +0200

On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 01:03:33AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 10:08:57PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > There was a commit log message that said:
> > "Added some suggestions provided by Osamu Asoki improving some text and

Typo "Asoki" is now in CVS Log fixed. Just in case you wonder ...

Jens

Message #177 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org, luk@debian.org, vorlon@debian.org

Subject: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:00:56 +0200

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 report is open
for almost three years now. I talked also to Steve, who is one
of the main authors of the release notes and aware of the issue.

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
debian-doc@lists.debian.org and/or 332782@bugs.debian.org. Many
thanks for your collaboration.

If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three
weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start
the release notes from scratch :~(

Authors mentioned in the release notes:

Josip Rodin (joy)
Bob Hilliard (hilliard)
Adam Di Carlo (aph)
Anne Bezemer (is this J.A.Bezemer@opensourcepartners.nl and/or
  costar.at.panic.et.tudelft.nl?)
Rob Bradford (robster)
Frans Pop (fjp)
Andreas Barth (aba)
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peñ(jfs)
Steve Langasek (vorlon)

The old CVS mentions further:

barbier (Denis Barbier)
djpig (Frank Lichtenheld)
ender (David Martínez
fbothamy (probably frederic.bothamy@free.fr)
jseidel (Jens? Seidel)
liling (Ling Li?)
pmachard (Pierre Machard)
spaillar (Simon Paillard?)
tale (Tapio Lehtonen)
xerakko (Miguel Gea Milvaques)

* What about translations? We start from scratch, but
  translators can use their own translations and re-commit under
  the terms of GPL.

* What about other contributors? So far, I could not find other
  contributor names in the logs (i.e. other than translations).
  If you find or know something, please "follow-up".

Greetings from the Argentine.

Message #182 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-doc@lists.debian.org, vorlon@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:36:43 +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 impact is probably small,
> but I really want to solve the issue now. The bug report is open
> for almost three years now. I talked also to Steve, who is one
> of the main authors of the release notes and aware of the issue.
> 
> 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
> debian-doc@lists.debian.org and/or 332782@bugs.debian.org. Many
> thanks for your collaboration.
> 
> If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three
> weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start
> the release notes from scratch :~(
> 
> Authors mentioned in the release notes:
> 
> Josip Rodin (joy)
> Bob Hilliard (hilliard)
> Adam Di Carlo (aph)
> Anne Bezemer (is this J.A.Bezemer@opensourcepartners.nl and/or
>   costar.at.panic.et.tudelft.nl?)
> Rob Bradford (robster)
> Frans Pop (fjp)
> Andreas Barth (aba)
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peñ(jfs)
> Steve Langasek (vorlon)
> 
> The old CVS mentions further:
> 
> barbier (Denis Barbier)
> djpig (Frank Lichtenheld)
> ender (David Martínez
> fbothamy (probably frederic.bothamy@free.fr)
> jseidel (Jens? Seidel)
> liling (Ling Li?)
> pmachard (Pierre Machard)
> spaillar (Simon Paillard?)
> tale (Tapio Lehtonen)
> xerakko (Miguel Gea Milvaques)
> 
> * What about translations? We start from scratch, but
>   translators can use their own translations and re-commit under
>   the terms of GPL.
> 
> * What about other contributors? So far, I could not find other
>   contributor names in the logs (i.e. other than translations).
>   If you find or know something, please "follow-up".

I guess bug submitters and/or patch providers would also count as
contributor?

Cheers

Luk

Message #187 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Cc: debian-doc@lists.debian.org, 332782@bugs.debian.org, luk@debian.org

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:19:46 -0700

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 impact is probably small,
> but I really want to solve the issue now. The bug report is open
> for almost three years now. I talked also to Steve, who is one
> of the main authors of the release notes and aware of the issue.

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...

> 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
> debian-doc@lists.debian.org and/or 332782@bugs.debian.org. Many
> thanks for your collaboration.

Legally, there is no reason to require GPG-signed email; and there's no
guarantee that everyone who has contributed to the notes has a GPG key at
all.  Please don't set the bar higher than necessary.

In the bug log, you will see that several contributors have already agreed
to GPLv2 as a license: myself, Osamu Aoki, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
(implicitly - because he was pushing the relicensing, we can assume he
wasn't doing so in contradiction of his own licensing wishes).

> If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three
> weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start
> the release notes from scratch :~(

> Authors mentioned in the release notes:

> Josip Rodin (joy)
> Bob Hilliard (hilliard)
> Adam Di Carlo (aph)
> Anne Bezemer (is this J.A.Bezemer@opensourcepartners.nl and/or
>   costar.at.panic.et.tudelft.nl?)
> Rob Bradford (robster)
> Frans Pop (fjp)
> Andreas Barth (aba)
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peñ(jfs)
> Steve Langasek (vorlon)

> The old CVS mentions further:

> barbier (Denis Barbier)
> djpig (Frank Lichtenheld)
> ender (David Martínez
> fbothamy (probably frederic.bothamy@free.fr)

correct.

> jseidel (Jens? Seidel)

correct.

> liling (Ling Li?)
> pmachard (Pierre Machard)
> spaillar (Simon Paillard?)
> tale (Tapio Lehtonen)
> xerakko (Miguel Gea Milvaques)


> * What about translations? We start from scratch, but
>   translators can use their own translations and re-commit under
>   the terms of GPL.

If we get license approval, I don't see any reason to start from scratch.

> * What about other contributors? So far, I could not find other
>   contributor names in the logs (i.e. other than translations).
>   If you find or know something, please "follow-up".

From <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332782#87>, we have
these contributors not listed in your mail:

 - Daniel Nylander
 - Roberto C. Sánchez
 - Clytie Siddall
 - Frederik Schueler
 - Adeodato Simó
 - Nobuhiro IMAI
 - Luk Claes
 - Andrea Mennucci
 - Martin Michlmayr
 - Osamu Aoki
 - Jordà Polo

I also promised, once upon a time, that I would run an analysis of the
commit logs to try to get a list of other contributors.  Fortunately the
release notes are now available in svn, so I can use something better than
'cvs annotate' for this... :)  I happened to use bzr-svn for the method
shown below, but it should work equally well with svn instead.

$ bzr branch svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes release-notes.trunk
$ cd release-notes.trunk
$ for file in $(find * -type f \( -name '*.sgml' -o -name '*.po' \)); do
       bzr annotate --all $file
  done | cut -f1 -d '|' | sort | uniq -d -c | sort -n > ../annotations
$

This gets me a list of 590 commits, ordered by the number of affected lines.
The first 103 of these affect 3 or fewer lines; I'm going to draw an
arbitrary line there, and assert that any contribution with less than 3
remaining unaffected lines in the current version is probably not
copyrightable.

$ sed -i -n -e '/^[[:space:]]*4\b/,$p' ../annotations 
$

Now we can grab the list of significant committers to the current revision;
there shouldn't be any surprises in this list:

$ awk '{print $NF}' ../annotations |sort -u
aba
barbier
ender
fbotham
fjp
jfs
joy
jseidel
liling
pmachar
robster
tale
vorlon
xerakko
$

And we can also grab the commit logs for each of these remaining 487
revisions of interest:

$ awk '{print $2}' ../annotations | xargs -n1 bzr log -r \
  | grep -v '^[^[:space:]]' > ../messages
$

Visually postprocessing gets me the following list of contributors, some
perhaps easier to contact than others.  I've grouped them into major or
minor contributors, based on the content of the commit logs; erring on the
side of caution if it's ambiguous.

I think we need to at least make an effort to get a sign-off from all these
"major" contributors as part of a GPLv2 licensing, and if they can't be
reached we should drop/replace their contributions.  For the "minor"
contributors, I think we'd be ok to leave their changes in if we can't reach
them, and only remove them if they object to the license choice.

FWIW, 1585 lines of the current release notes are traceable, unmodified, to
joy's initial import in 2003 - I really don't know how to trace back any
further without a *lot* of work, we should probably assume for now that the
copyright on those contents is held by the people listed as release notes
editors for pre-sarge...


major contributions:
  Yooseong Yang <yooseong@debian.org>
  Mario Iseli
  TAKEI Nobumitsu
  Luca Brivio <lucab83@infinito.it>
  Andre Luis Lopes <andrelop@debian.org>
  Nobuhiro IMAI <nov@yo.rim.or.jp>
  Clytie Siddall
  Holger Wansing <h.wansing@onlinehome.de>
  Stan Ioan-Eugen
  Eddy Petrişor
  Noritada Kobayashi <nori1@dolphin.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
  Tetralet <tetralet@pchome.com.tw>
  Steinar H. Gunderson
  Daniel Nylander <info@danielnylander.se>
  Miroslav Kure <kurem@upcase.inf.upol.cz>
  Igor Tamara
  Osamu Aoki
  "Hero_xbd!.RRR" <heroxbd@163.com>
  Alexander Schmehl <alexander@schmehl.info>
  Nikolai Prokoschenko <nikolai@prokoschenko.de>
  Luk Claes
  Dan Damian <dand@level7.ro>
  Andrea Mennucci
  Guillem Jover
  Antoni Bella
  Vincent McIntyre
  Minoru Nagahama
  Nabetaro (KURASAWA Nozomu)
  Maximilian Attems
  Miguel Figueiredo
  Felipe Augusto van de Wiel
  TAKEI Nobumitsu
  Adeodato Simó
  Martin Michlmayr
  Jordà Polo
  Ippei Tamura
  Yuri Kozlov <kozlov.y@gmail.com>
  Juan Manuel García Molina 
  Claus Hindsgaul <claus_h@image.dk>
  Wojciech Zaręba <wojtekz@comp.waw.pl>
  Zhengpeng Hou
  Rui Pedro
  Roman Benko's <benco@acid.sk>
  Tommi Vainikainen

minor contributions:
  Joost van Baal
  Simon Paillard
  KISE Hiroshi
  Stephane Blondon
  Nicolas Aupetit
  Marcello Nuccio
  Helge Kreutzmann
  "Max" (:P)
  Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA
  Charles Brockman <mr-chuck@att.net>
  Olivier Trichet  
  "Eric-m" (:P)
  Alberto Rodríguez
  Seiji Kaneko
  Santiago Vila
  Roberto C. Sánchez
  Leopold Palomo
  la Laida
  Hermann J. Beckers <hj.beckers@onlinehome.de>
  Wouter Verhelst
  Martín Ferrari
  Kenshi Muto


Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Message #192 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org, debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:12:11 +0200

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 <vorlon@debian.org>
#339081, #363056 - Japanese translation fixes by Kobayashi Noritada
  <nori1@dolphin.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, IMHO minor, not copyrightable
#402910, #413409 - patches by Luk ;~)
#401317 - patch by Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>
#404884 - patch by Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de>
#415618 - patch by Mark Brown <broonie@debian.org>
#417769 - patch by Alexander Schmehl <alex@melusine.alphascorpii.net>
#401096 - patch by Miguel Gea Milvaques <xerakko@debian.org>
#329361 - patch by Joost van Baal <joostvb-20050921-3@mdcc.cx>
#363468 - patch by Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
#397296 - many hints by Clytie Siddall <clytie@riverland.net.au>
#417310 - patch by Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de>
#419908, #435075 - Russian translation by Yuri Kozlov <kozlov.y@gmail.com>

Do you know of more?

Message #197 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, debian-doc@lists.debian.org, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:45:50 +0200

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's no
> guarantee that everyone who has contributed to the notes has a GPG key at
> all.  Please don't set the bar higher than necessary.

OK, I'll ask for agreement to GPL only and not ask for GPG signature.

> If we get license approval, I don't see any reason to start from scratch.

OK.

> From <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332782#87>, we have
> these contributors not listed in your mail:
>
>  - Daniel Nylander

Swedish translation.

>  - Roberto C. Sánchez

Fix of typos and corrections of bad English.

>  - Clytie Siddall

Vietnamese translation, of course, and typo fixes.

>  - Frederik Schueler

Obsolete AMD64 information. We don't need to care.

>  - Adeodato Simó

Some bits about Python, which are not in the release notes
anymore. We don't need to care.

>  - Nobuhiro IMAI

TAKEI Nobumitsu

>  - Luk Claes

No comment, as Luk is one of the driving forces of this effort.

>  - Andrea Mennucci

About Zope/Plone update. We need to know if the text still holds
for lenny, anyway.

>  - Martin Michlmayr

ARM, MIPS and friends.

>  - Osamu Aoki

Is this the stuff about screen etc.?

>  - Jordà Polo

Catalan translation? Or more?

> I think we need to at least make an effort to get a sign-off from all these
> "major" contributors as part of a GPLv2 licensing, and if they can't be
> reached we should drop/replace their contributions.

OK. It's in the nature of release notes, that many contributions
are already removed from the text since long.

> FWIW, 1585 lines of the current release notes are traceable, unmodified, to
> joy's initial import in 2003 - I really don't know how to trace back any
> further without a *lot* of work, we should probably assume for now that the
> copyright on those contents is held by the people listed as release notes
> editors for pre-sarge...

If somebody really contributed significantly to the release
notes and this contribution is really still part of the future
lenny release notes and the contributor does not agree to put
their work under GPL2+, they may just ask to remove their
contribution and I will immediately do so.

Message #202 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Cc: debian-doc@lists.debian.org, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:54:24 -0700

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 02:45:50AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > From <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332782#87>, we have
> > these contributors not listed in your mail:

> >  - Daniel Nylander

> Swedish translation.

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?

> >  - Frederik Schueler

> Obsolete AMD64 information. We don't need to care.

Ok, that appears to be true.

> >  - Adeodato Simó

> Some bits about Python, which are not in the release notes
> anymore. We don't need to care.

Correct, thanks; he still showed up in my analysis of the commit messages,
but this was a false-positive because robster made a single commit for both
the python bits and some other changes.

> >  - Nobuhiro IMAI

> TAKEI Nobumitsu

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.

> >  - Andrea Mennucci

> About Zope/Plone update. We need to know if the text still holds
> for lenny, anyway.

That's true.  At present, this text is still in the release notes, so this
is an outstanding point to be resolved, one way or the other.

> >  - Osamu Aoki

> Is this the stuff about screen etc.?

This was revision 4245; the changes appear to include a number of added
section headers, some text rearrangement, and some additions regarding
apt/aptitude.  Since he has already agreed to the licensing under GPLv2,
there's no issue here anyway.

> >  - Jordà Polo

> Catalan translation? Or more?

All the significant changes were to the Catalan translation.

> > I think we need to at least make an effort to get a sign-off from all these
> > "major" contributors as part of a GPLv2 licensing, and if they can't be
> > reached we should drop/replace their contributions.

> OK. It's in the nature of release notes, that many contributions
> are already removed from the text since long.

Bear in mind that this list of "major" contributors was assembled using bzr
(svn) blame - it only looks at those commits that still have lines present
in the current version, and this list was further filtered to exclude
any contributions of which fewer than 4 lines remain.  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.

> > FWIW, 1585 lines of the current release notes are traceable, unmodified, to
> > joy's initial import in 2003 - I really don't know how to trace back any
> > further without a *lot* of work, we should probably assume for now that the
> > copyright on those contents is held by the people listed as release notes
> > editors for pre-sarge...

> If somebody really contributed significantly to the release
> notes and this contribution is really still part of the future
> lenny release notes and the contributor does not agree to put
> their work under GPL2+, they may just ask to remove their
> contribution and I will immediately do so.

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?

I have a slight preference for GPLv2 only for licensing of stand-alone
works, but I'm ok with GPLv2 or later if you think that's best.  If you *do*
think it's important, we should get that sorted out early, since so far the
three "ok"s we've gotten have been for GPLv2, not GPLv2+.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Message #207 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jens Seidel <jensseidel@users.sf.net>

To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Cc: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org, luk@debian.org

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:06:02 +0200

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 General Public license (version 2 or
> > higher) by an GPG-signed e-mail to
> > debian-doc@lists.debian.org and/or 332782@bugs.debian.org. Many
> > thanks for your collaboration.

> > jseidel (Jens? Seidel)

Yep, that's me. I'm fine with GPL v2 or later for all my contributions
(German translation, Makefile stuff, ...) and agree to this license.

Please note that beside jseidel (my old CVS account name) also
jseidel-guest is used (svn alioth account name).

Could this be cleaned up? Probably not (whould require a svn dump | sed
... | svn load) ...

Many commits from me are just checkins of other people translation. I do
not own the copyright for it. Nevertheless my commit messages should
always contain the contributor.

Jens

Message #212 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org, debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:38:13 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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 <vorlon@debian.org>
> #339081, #363056 - Japanese translation fixes by Kobayashi Noritada
>   <nori1@dolphin.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, IMHO minor, not copyrightable
> #402910, #413409 - patches by Luk ;~)
> #401317 - patch by Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>
> #404884 - patch by Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de>
> #415618 - patch by Mark Brown <broonie@debian.org>
> #417769 - patch by Alexander Schmehl <alex@melusine.alphascorpii.net>
> #401096 - patch by Miguel Gea Milvaques <xerakko@debian.org>
> #329361 - patch by Joost van Baal <joostvb-20050921-3@mdcc.cx>
> #363468 - patch by Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
> #397296 - many hints by Clytie Siddall <clytie@riverland.net.au>
> #417310 - patch by Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de>
> #419908, #435075 - Russian translation by Yuri Kozlov <kozlov.y@gmail.com>

Yes, go fot GPLv2+

For small contribution like mine, I do not think you need license
because by submitting in this way via Debian system, we pre-approved to
Debian to use it as they wish.  It is practically copyright assigment to
debian, or technically, SPI.

Osamu

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #217 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, debian-doc@lists.debian.org, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:11:19 +0200

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 :~)

Message #222 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>

To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:36:14 +0200

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
> debian-doc@lists.debian.org and/or 332782@bugs.debian.org. Many
> thanks for your collaboration.
> 
> If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three
> weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start
> the release notes from scratch :~(
> 
> Authors mentioned in the release notes:
> 
> Josip Rodin (joy)

Why do I have to be on top of the list of copyright mischief?! ;)

I believe that the unanimous attitude of all editors of this document has
always been that they don't have any particular reason or right to restrain
use and distribution of the text, because the release notes are inherently a
collaborative effort, the writers "only" describe the release, they don't
themselves create something which is absolutely worth claiming copyright on;
indeed, nobody has done that.

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 the public
domain is a perfectly reasonable legal scenario, until decided otherwise.

If you get all the contributors who have claimed authorship (even if they
haven't claimed copyright) to consistently and explicitly license the work
under the GPL, then that's another reasonable option for the future.

I hereby confirm that my edits can be distributed under the GNU General
Public License version 2. (That was the version I used back then and
of which I'm sure; I haven't fully investigated version 3 so I'd rather
defer that.)

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Message #227 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>

Cc: debian-doc@lists.debian.org, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:42:12 +0200

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 by all of the
> authors, I think that considering the work to be released into the public
> domain is a perfectly reasonable legal scenario, until decided otherwise.

You try to apply logic and common sense - but we're talking
about law - worse, copyright law.

> I hereby confirm that my edits can be distributed under the GNU General
> Public License version 2. (That was the version I used back then and
> of which I'm sure; I haven't fully investigated version 3 so I'd rather
> defer that.)

OK, given that other contributors already agreed to GPL2, too, I
drop my suggestion of GPL2 "or higher".

Message #232 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>

To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:19:39 +0200

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 the public
> > domain is a perfectly reasonable legal scenario, until decided otherwise.
> 
> You try to apply logic and common sense - but we're talking
> about law - worse, copyright law.

Well, okay, but we've already screwed up in theoretical terms. Instead, we
have to think about the practical aspects of the law instead - will someone
abuse our work, or will someone abuse us in court. (Indeed, many a lawyer
will say that we should only ever consider practical aspects, and leave
the theory to them.)

I suppose copy&paste can happen with the Release Notes, but it would not
detract from our cause (publishing information about Debian), so we don't
care if someone "rips us off" :)

I guess I could envision a case where some minor rogue contributor comes in
screaming how his commit was 'all rights reserved' and how they never
realized what was happening (shocking! :). 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 any license to modify). Only after
that would they have to explain the insignificant logical details such as
just how they managed to mistake the second most visible document in the
project -- with the public contact addresses and the public CVS repository
with read/write access for many people -- for private venues where their
work would be kept safe from copyright infringement.

So it's pretty much a non-issue :)

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Message #237 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>

To: Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:26:38 +0200

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 to be released into the public
>>> domain is a perfectly reasonable legal scenario, until decided otherwise.
>> You try to apply logic and common sense - but we're talking
>> about law - worse, copyright law.
> 
> Well, okay, but we've already screwed up in theoretical terms. Instead, we
> have to think about the practical aspects of the law instead - will someone
> abuse our work, or will someone abuse us in court. (Indeed, many a lawyer
> will say that we should only ever consider practical aspects, and leave
> the theory to them.)
> 
> I suppose copy&paste can happen with the Release Notes, but it would not
> detract from our cause (publishing information about Debian), so we don't
> care if someone "rips us off" :)
> 
> I guess I could envision a case where some minor rogue contributor comes in
> screaming how his commit was 'all rights reserved' and how they never
> realized what was happening (shocking! :). 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 any license to modify). Only after
> that would they have to explain the insignificant logical details such as
> just how they managed to mistake the second most visible document in the
> project -- with the public contact addresses and the public CVS repository
> with read/write access for many people -- for private venues where their
> work would be kept safe from copyright infringement.
> 
> So it's pretty much a non-issue :)

Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per
copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright
on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far
fetched at all without having a license...).

Cheers

Luk

Message #242 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org, debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:58:25 +0200

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 any license to modify).

> Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per
> copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright
> on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far
> fetched at all without having a license...).

As I said above... they could hardly claim copyright on modifications which
they made without a license.

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Message #247 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>

To: Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org, debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:55:24 +0900

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 not infringing on previous work (which they apparently
> > > didn't have any license to modify).
> 
> > Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per
> > copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright
> > on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far
> > fetched at all without having a license...).
> 
> As I said above... they could hardly claim copyright on modifications which
> they made without a license.

Also, there is no direct damadge made to the contributor too.

Compensation is for something they have fair claim.
 

Message #252 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: hendrik@topoi.pooq.com

To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Cc: Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:07:03 -0400

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 committed was both copyrightable in the first
> > > > place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently
> > > > didn't have any license to modify).
> > 
> > > Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per
> > > copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright
> > > on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far
> > > fetched at all without having a license...).
> > 
> > As I said above... they could hardly claim copyright on modifications which
> > they made without a license.
> 
> Also, there is no direct damadge made to the contributor too.
> 
> Compensation is for something they have fair claim.

One problem is with people who contribute stuff they *didn't* have the 
rights to.  The copyright holder could, of course sue them, but could 
also sue us.  And if those people just go bankrupt, we have no hope of 
recovering damages (i.e., what we owe the real copyright holder) from 
them.

-- hendrik

Message #257 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Nikolai Prokoschenko" <nikolai@prokoschenko.de>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Contribution to the release notes

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:37:40 +0200

Hallo,

my contribution to the release notes have been

1. Russian translation
2. Commits on behalf of the russian translation team

As to item 1., I gladly allow that my contributions to the Debian
GNU/Linux release
notes be distributed under any DFSG-free license. As to item 2. I
cannot decide that, a e-mail to the debian-l10n-russian mailing list
and committers list in the Alioth project might clear that up.

Regards,
Nikolai

Message #262 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:46:29 +0200

On 2008-09-03 16:25, Rob Bradford wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 17:05 +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> > Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> > proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> > further on the document.
> >
>
> > Or:
> >
> > "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> > notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."
> >
>
> Fine with me!
>
> Cheerio,
>
> Rob

Message #267 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [debacle@debian.org: Your contribution to the Debian release notes]

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:01:53 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #272 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Release Notes licence

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:28:58 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.


Note that quite a few of the changes I've committed were actually 
contributed by others through bug reports etc. To determine the actual 
authors of those bits one would have to check the mailing list archives 
and BTS.

Cheers,
FJP

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #277 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Nylander <info@danielnylander.se>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: License

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:37:51 +0200

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Regards,
Daniel Nylander

Message #282 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tapio Lehtonen <tale@iki.fi>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 22:08:33 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:05:49PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
 "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
 notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
 Public License, version 2."


-- 
Tapio Lehtonen
tale@debian.org
Tapio.Lehtonen@IKI.FI
http://www.iki.fi/tapio.lehtonen

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #287 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joost van Baal <joostvb@mdcc.cx>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:12:21 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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 impact is probably small,
> but I really want to solve the issue now. The bug report is open
> for almost three years now. I talked also to Steve, who is one
> of the main authors of the release notes and aware of the issue.
> 
> 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
> debian-doc@lists.debian.org and/or 332782@bugs.debian.org. Many
> thanks for your collaboration.
> 
> If I cannot get positive answers within, hm, let's say three
> weeks, from most main authors, I'll remove all text and start
> the release notes from scratch :~(
> 
> Authors mentioned in the release notes:
> 
<snip>
> Anne Bezemer (is this J.A.Bezemer@opensourcepartners.nl and/or
>   costar.at.panic.et.tudelft.nl?)

Yes, it's "J.A. Bezemer" <j.a.bezemer@opensourcepartners.nl>.

Op Sun 24 Aug 2008 om 12:19:46 -0700 schreef Steve Langasek:
> minor contributions:
>   Joost van Baal

FWIW, I am happy with any DFSG-free license on my contribution to the
release notes.

Bye,

Joost

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #292 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <tolimar@debian.org>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:49:22 +0200

Hi!

W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."

That's fine with me.


Best Regards,
  Alexander

Message #297 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <alexander@schmehl.info>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:37:11 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Best Regards,
  Alexander

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #302 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <faw@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:08:07 -0300

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAki+7qcACgkQCjAO0JDlyka6mwCgj+i0mYM0+Uh7OkZI3B6fej9Z
1EYAnRV40eEGQeD1LWTAxfrdi2cb96jY
=y4dE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #307 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Miguel Gea Milvaques <xerakko@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: License Change

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:27:19 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Miguel Gea Milvaques
Debian Developer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAki+yPEACgkQNTNQylgICMQNqwCgxdJTX1+AmVsppelbUjZsumeO
4CQAnjll2k3uGwnUadfQEvqcuxWaS7ek
=nGcl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #312 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:23:37 +0200

 I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
 notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
 Public License, version 2.

Cheers

Luk

Message #317 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:23:21 +0200

* W. Martin Borgert (debacle@debian.org) [080903 17:06]:
> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:
> 
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2."

That's ok with me - if you need another license as well, please don't
hesitate to ask me again (but allowing all DFSG-licenses is too much for
me, sorry).



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/

Message #322 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alfredo Finol <adlpaf@gmail.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#332782: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:12:05 -0430

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Message #327 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alfredo Finol <afinol@gmail.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#332782: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:13:29 -0430

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAki/PT0ACgkQtmW0UXhj6xMsJwCfUo73Kbq6DyVWixTAgpgPyIKx
I/IAoKta55yAp+wEX7r5uRgCbShx6BvJ
=KmCb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #332 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Miroslav Kure <kurem@upcase.inf.upol.cz>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:44:25 +0200

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:05:49PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.

I'm not sure about my contribution for the English version, I just
pointed out some discrepancies. (On the other hand I'm the only
translator of release notes to Czech since Woody.)

For the record I hereby state that my contribution to the Debian
GNU/Linux release notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free
license.

-- 
Miroslav Kure

Message #337 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:01:03 +0200

On 2008-09-04 09:34, Wojciech Zaręba wrote:
> W. Martin Borgert pisze:
> > Hi,
> >
> > it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> > Debian GNU/Linux[2].
>
> That's right.
>
> > Unfortunately, this document had never a
> > proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> > further on the document.
> >
> > If you did not contribute to the Debian release notes and/or
> > this mail does not make any sense for you, please reply, so that
> > I can remove your name from the contributors list.
> >
> > Else:
> >
> > I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> > notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> > version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> > stating that you allow this. E.g.:
> >
> > "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> > notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
> > Public License, version 2."
>
> So:
>
> I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2.
>
> Best regards
> Wojciech Zaręba

Message #342 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:28:39 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

* W. Martin Borgert <debacle@debian.org> [2008-09-04 12:25]:
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."

Fine with me.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #347 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Maximilian Attems" <maks@sternwelten.at>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:21:28 +0200

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM, W. Martin Borgert <debacle@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.
>
> If you did not contribute to the Debian release notes and/or
> this mail does not make any sense for you, please reply, so that
> I can remove your name from the contributors list.
>
> Else:
>
> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:
>
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2."

full ack, fine with me

thanks for the effort.

> Or:
>
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."
>
> Or whatever you find appropriate and is compatible with GPL2.
>
> Sorry for the extra work you have, but we want to solve this
> issue before we start the lenny release notes. This means, it
> would help us a lot, if you could send your permission mail as
> soon as possible.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang Martin Borgert (Debian Developer)
>
> [1] http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/releasenotes
> [2] http://www.debian.org/
> [3] http://bugs.debian.org/332782
> [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>
>

Message #352 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:34:14 +0200 (CEST)

Upon request from W. Martin Borgert:

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes can
be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Message #357 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:48:40 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

As requested, I aply the following statements to my contributions to the
release notes:

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:25:15PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> 
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2."
> 
Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #362 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:10:57 +0900

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi release-note team,

Thank you for your dedicated works.
Although the contributions what I did were very minor, it is proud
that release notes includes my name. :)

Hereby I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.

Thanks,
- -- 
Kenshi Muto
kmuto@debian.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iEYEARECAAYFAki/0C4ACgkQQKW+7XLQPLEf0gCgi7OMGQ233vC50u8RhoguelvS
8UoAnjGrnkg/Mv4RxZg0uxEyoCXYOZ8J
=tVUB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #367 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martín Ferrari <tincho@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Release notes license

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:12:27 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Although my contributions weren't that much :)

-- 
Martín Ferrari <tincho@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #372 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Di Carlo <aph@debian.org>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:52:51 -0400

"W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> writes:

> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2].

Hm, perhaps on an earlier version of the document.

> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:

Granted, here we go:

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.

-- 
...Adam Di Carlo...<adam@onshored.com>.......<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>

Message #377 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Yuri Kozlov" <kozlov.y@gmail.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:00:13 +0400

Hello,

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

-- 
Regards,
Yuri Kozlov

Message #382 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Stéphane Blondon" <stephane.blondon@gmail.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:18:42 +0200

2008/9/4 W. Martin Borgert <debacle@debian.org>:
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2].

Probably several fixes in the french translation of the release notes.


> Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.
>

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2 or (at Debian's preference) upper.


-- 
Stéphane.

Message #387 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Marcello Nuccio" <marcello.nuccio@gmail.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Debian release notes' license

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:25:43 +0200

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.

Cheers, Marcello Nuccio

Message #392 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Hermann J. Beckers" <hj.beckers@onlinehome.de>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:27:23 +0200

...
> Else:
>
> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:
>
 "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
 notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
 Public License, version 2."

Hermann-Josef Beckers

Message #397 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Jamal Rhoades" <tennisdom@huanyuequipment.com>

To: <332653@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Du hast noch mehr SpaB beim x ..

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:51:11 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Mein Kumpel hat es ausprobiert: Original VIA rez im Internet bestellen ist ganz einfach und ja seitdem er VIA nimmt, ist seine Frau wieder richtig zufrieden mit ihm.

http://describerich.com

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #402 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: A Mennucc <debdev@tonelli.sns.it>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:14:11 +0200

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:25:15PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."

fine for me

a.

Message #407 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:34:07 +0300

Hi,

“I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.”

That or “version 2 or later” would be fine as well.

regards,
guillem

Message #412 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: stan ioan-eugen <stan.ieugen@gmail.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: release notes license

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:41:42 +0300

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Message #417 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Juan Manuel García Molina" <juanma@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: My contribution to release notes

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:22:56 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I, Juan Manuel García Molina, allow that my contribution to the Debian
GNU/Linux release notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Regards,
Juanma.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #422 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tommi Vainikainen <thv@iki.fi>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: My contribution to release notes

Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:33:57 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes can
be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

-- 
Tommi Vainikainen

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #427 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clytie Siddall <clytie@riverland.net.au>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Release notes licensing

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:33:20 +0930

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

from Clytie

Vietnamese Free Software Translation Team
http://vnoss.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=projects:l10n

Message #432 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "J.A. Bezemer" <j.a.bezemer@opensourcepartners.nl>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:36:26 +0200 (CEST)

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Best regards,
Anne Bezemer

Message #437 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Luca Brivio <lucab83@infinito.it>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: licencing permission

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:02:37 +0200

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes, including 
any contribution to their official translations, can be distributed under any 
DFSG-free license.

-- 
Luca Brivio

Message #442 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:45:33 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I can't remember having contributed to the release notes, but just in
case:

  I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes can
  be distributed under any DFSG-free license (including GPLv2 or later).

However, if somebody wants to double-check and possibly remove me from
the contributors list, that'd be welcome as well. (Though I don't enjoy
of a particular good memory.)

Cheers,

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org
 
Love in your heart wasn't put there to stay.
Love isn't love 'til you give it away.
                -- Oscar Hammerstein II

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #447 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frederik Schüler <fs@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:21:45 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi!

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes can be 
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.

Best regards
Frederik Schüler

-- 
ENOSIG

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #452 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Simon Paillard <simon.paillard@resel.enst-bretagne.fr>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 21:58:51 +0200

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:25:15PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

-- 
Simon Paillard

Message #457 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: TAKEI Nobumitsu <takei@webmasters.gr.jp>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:35:01 +0900 (JST)

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>
Subject: Your contribution to the Debian release notes
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:25:15 +0200
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. 

Yes, I fixed typos in Japanese translation.

> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.

Regards,

-- 
TAKEI Nobumitsu

Message #462 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jordà Polo <jorda@ettin.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:57:57 +0200

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:25:15PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.
>
> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this.

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes can
be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
version 2.

Message #467 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Eddy Petrișor" <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:20:02 +0300

2008/9/4 W. Martin Borgert <debacle@debian.org>:
> Hi,
>
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.
>
> If you did not contribute to the Debian release notes and/or
> this mail does not make any sense for you, please reply, so that
> I can remove your name from the contributors list.
>
> Else:
>
> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:

done

> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."

Please consider the above words as my own.

> Or whatever you find appropriate and is compatible with GPL2.
>
> Sorry for the extra work you have, but we want to solve this
> issue before we start the lenny release notes. This means, it
> would help us a lot, if you could send your permission mail as
> soon as possible.

-- 
Regards,
EddyP
=============================================
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

Message #472 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org, debian-doc@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:41:14 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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 <zobel@ftbfs.de>

All of my contributions to the release notes were done as part of my
job as Stable Release Manager, and thus you have my permission to see
all of contributions to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes to be
distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Greetings
Martin

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #477 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: André Luís Lopes <andrelop@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: As asked by e-mail

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:26:09 -0300

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

- --
André Luís Lopes
andrelop@{andrelop,debian}.org
http://www.andrelop.org/blog/
Public GPG KeyID : 9D1B82F6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjMBbwACgkQW4/i9Z0bgvaj4gCdEZtlw3c3ZRBOWLYESkU2Fi23
QxkAn16USxphb0NDOMf1atIjZGfUjMCf
=Pxyz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #482 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Helge Kreutzmann <debian@helgefjell.de>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:59:52 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello Wolfgang,
for the record:
  "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
  notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
  Public License, version 2 or any later version."

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:25:15PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a

Yes, I worked on the German translations (and maybe on removing typos
as well).

> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.

Yes, clearly understood.

> Sorry for the extra work you have, but we want to solve this

No problem, good that you solve it now. Is there some tracker who
responded and how?

> issue before we start the lenny release notes. This means, it
> would help us a lot, if you could send your permission mail as
> soon as possible.

Sorry for being so late, I was on vacation.

> Many thanks in advance!

Thanks to you for taking care of this!

Greetings

          Helge
-- 
      Dr. Helge Kreutzmann                     debian@helgefjell.de
           Dipl.-Phys.                   http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
        64bit GNU powered                     gpg signed mail preferred
           Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #487 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:34:15 +0000

Of course, my contribution to the Debian release notes can be
distributed under any DFSG free license, preferable GPL2 or, at
your option, any later version.

Message #492 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Claus Hindsgaul <claus.hindsgaul@gmail.com>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:28:29 +0200

Certainly:

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.


Sincerely,
Claus Hindsgaul

W. Martin Borgert skrev:
> Hi,
>
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.
>
> If you did not contribute to the Debian release notes and/or
> this mail does not make any sense for you, please reply, so that
> I can remove your name from the contributors list.
>
> Else:
>
> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:
>
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2."
>
> Or:
>
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."
>
> Or whatever you find appropriate and is compatible with GPL2.
>
> Sorry for the extra work you have, but we want to solve this
> issue before we start the lenny release notes. This means, it
> would help us a lot, if you could send your permission mail as
> soon as possible.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang Martin Borgert (Debian Developer)
>
> [1] http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/releasenotes
> [2] http://www.debian.org/
> [3] http://bugs.debian.org/332782
> [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>
>
>   

Message #497 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Leopold Palomo Avellaneda <leo@alaxarxa.net>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:27:13 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

A Dijous 04 Setembre 2008, vàreu escriure:
> Hi,
>
> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.

Wolfgang,

really I don't remember exactly which contribution are you talking about. I 
guess that I helped in the translation to catalan of the debian notes. 
However, as I "love" debian, I believe in the project and I would like to 
contribute more as I can, please, do whatever you think is the best for 
debian. 

Knowing a bit the licences, I think that "maybe" the more appropriate license 
is  DFSG-free license, but, I insist, please assign my contribution to the 
more appropriate licence for the debian project.

Regards,

Leo

> If you did not contribute to the Debian release notes and/or
> this mail does not make any sense for you, please reply, so that
> I can remove your name from the contributors list.
>
> Else:
>
> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:
>
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2."
>
> Or:
>
> "I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."
>
> Or whatever you find appropriate and is compatible with GPL2.
>
> Sorry for the extra work you have, but we want to solve this
> issue before we start the lenny release notes. This means, it
> would help us a lot, if you could send your permission mail as
> soon as possible.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang Martin Borgert (Debian Developer)
>
> [1] http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/releasenotes
> [2] http://www.debian.org/
> [3] http://bugs.debian.org/332782
> [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html



-- 
--
Linux User 152692
PGP: 0xF944807E
Catalonia

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #502 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:30:02 +0000

Just for the record: Wouter does not claim authorship.

On 2008-09-04 18:28, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 04:49:46PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > On 2008-09-04 15:19, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > I'm not saying I have, and I'm not saying I haven't. It would, however,
> > > make things a lot easier if you could let me know how you came to the
> > > conclusion that I did indeed contribute, so that I could review it
> > > myself.
> > 
> > In your case it's a CVS log entry by Frans Pop:
> > 
> > | revision 1.12
> > | date: 2005-06-01 20:56:04 +0200;  author: fjp;  state: Exp;  lines: +96 -94;
> > | Review by Wouter Verhelst (many thanks!); some things still to be done
> 
> Ah -- right, that was after I reviewed it for the m68k-specific bits.
> 
> I don't think those will still remain; and if they do, it was Frans who
> wrote the bits eventually, not me.
> 
> -- 
> <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
>   -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Message #507 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kobayashi Noritada <nori1@dolphin.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:33:53 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Sorry for being late.  I thought I had sent this message already.

Best regards,

-nori

Message #512 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Igor Támara <igor@tamarapatino.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Debian Release notes permission

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:45:56 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

Thanks for all.
-- 
Recomiendo DrGeo para explorar geometría euclidea
http://documentation.ofset.org/drgeo

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #517 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: KISE Hiroshi <kise@fuyuneko.jp>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes (re-post)

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:13:25 +0900 (JST)

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license.

I'm sorry for late reply.

Regards,
-- 
KISE Hiroshi

Message #522 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes (re-post)

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 01:08:25 +0200

Charles sent the mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org, but his mail
didn't show up. So I reply...

On 2008-09-26 09:45, Charles Brockman wrote:
> I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release notes can be 
> distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.
>
> -- 
> Charles Brockman
>

Message #527 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@debianpt.org>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes (re-post)

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:06:18 +0100

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.

Miguel Figueiredo
http://www.DebianPT.org

Message #532 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au

To: "332782@bugs.debian.org" <332782@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes (re-post)

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:23:23 +1000 (EST)

Hello,

"I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
 notes can be distributed under any DFSG-free license."

Good luck with the next release notes.

Message #537 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>

To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Cc: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: release-notes: Where's the license?

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:43:50 +0200

Wolfgang

Can you make sure that the license is mentioned in the Release Notes, so
we can finally close this bug?

Thanks already.

Cheers

Luk

Message #542 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: release-notes: Where's the license?

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 18:22:06 +0200

On 2008-10-04 17:43, Luk Claes wrote:
> Can you make sure that the license is mentioned in the Release Notes, so
> we can finally close this bug?

This is already in the lenny branch I created during DebConf:
svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/branches/release-notes/lenny

Message #549 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nobuhiro IMAI <nov@yo.rim.or.jp>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Your contribution to the Debian release notes (re-post)

Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:08:36 +0900 (JST)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

I'm very sorry for my late reply.

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle_at_debian.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:44:20 +0200

> it seems, that you have contributed to the release notes[1] of
> Debian GNU/Linux[2]. Unfortunately, this document had never a
> proper license[3], which makes it difficult for us, to work
> further on the document.

Yes, I translated some versions of release-notes into Japanese, and
made a patch to English version.

> I hereby ask you to allow us to distribute the Debian release
> notes under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> version 2 [4]. Please send a mail to 332782@bugs.debian.org
> stating that you allow this. E.g.:

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.


Thanks,
--
Nobuhiro IMAI <nov@yo.rim.or.jp>
Key fingerprint = F39E D552 545D 7C64 D690  F644 5A15 746C BD8E 7106

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #554 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: vince <vinz65@gmail.com>

To: 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Declaration

Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:46:32 +0100

I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.

Message #559 received at 332782@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

To: vince <vinz65@gmail.com>, 332782@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#332782: Declaration

Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:12:44 +0100

On 2008-10-26 08:46, vince wrote:
> I allow that my contribution to the Debian GNU/Linux release
> notes can be distributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2.

Just for the record: vinz65@gmail.com is Vincenzo Campanella,
Italian translation. Grazie!

Message #564 received at 332782-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Simon Paillard <simon.paillard@resel.enst-bretagne.fr>

To: 514139-done@bugs.debian.org, 406131-done@bugs.debian.org, 513042-done@bugs.debian.org, 499093-done@bugs.debian.org, 418112-done@bugs.debian.org, 418911-done@bugs.debian.org, 504225-done@bugs.debian.org, 498905-done@bugs.debian.org, 332782-done@bugs.debian.org, 498624-done@bugs.debian.org, 509761-done@bugs.debian.org, 497500-done@bugs.debian.org, 500441-done@bugs.debian.org, 493931-done@bugs.debian.org, 497445-done@bugs.debian.org, 512690-done@bugs.debian.org, 420389-done@bugs.debian.org, 513506-done@bugs.debian.org, 514493-done@bugs.debian.org, 513627-done@bugs.debian.org, 513748-done@bugs.debian.org, 513040-done@bugs.debian.org, 514429-done@bugs.debian.org, 497388-done@bugs.debian.org, 513947-done@bugs.debian.org, 506007-done@bugs.debian.org, 475958-done@bugs.debian.org, 510501-done@bugs.debian.org, 503990-done@bugs.debian.org, 514009-done@bugs.debian.org, 494366-done@bugs.debian.org, 512666-done@bugs.debian.org, 505500-done@bugs.debian.org, 503441-done@bugs.debian.org, 457793-done@bugs.debian.org, 510324-done@bugs.debian.org, 513139-done@bugs.debian.org, 513041-done@bugs.debian.org, 489132-done@bugs.debian.org, 507118-done@bugs.debian.org, 513945-done@bugs.debian.org, 513529-done@bugs.debian.org, 506636-done@bugs.debian.org, 497252-done@bugs.debian.org, 513861-done@bugs.debian.org, 510445-done@bugs.debian.org, 513100-done@bugs.debian.org, 491000-done@bugs.debian.org, 497249-done@bugs.debian.org, 505725-done@bugs.debian.org, 447774-done@bugs.debian.org, 513256-done@bugs.debian.org, 505713-done@bugs.debian.org, 513763-done@bugs.debian.org, 503963-done@bugs.debian.org, 491180-done@bugs.debian.org, 513911-done@bugs.debian.org, 437266-done@bugs.debian.org, 505884-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Closing "pending" Lenny release-notes bugs

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:20:07 +0100

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 01:31:39PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Quoting "Simon Paillard" <simon.paillard@resel.enst-bretagne.fr>:
>> Can we :
>> - asssume all pending bugs have been commited to SVN ?
>
> Yes.

Closing Lenny release-notes pending bugs, since the relevant patches have been
commited to SVN trunk and are published on line at
http://debian.org/releases/lenny/releasenotes

Sorry for the mass mail.

-- 
Simon Paillard

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.