Re: Overview of copyright issues

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:19:20PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit : 
> > But we *don't* have "a licensing situation" on a file-by-file
> > basis.  Everything[1] under Documentation/  is FDL; everything
> > else[2] is GPLv2.
> 
> What about keeping Trevor's work under a CC-BY-ND license, in case he
> agrees with this?

I'd rather not keep track of individual licenses in the source
tree.  Since he's stated that his work is in public domain,
there'd be no problems with people extracting it for any CC stuff.
... err wait, are we talking about Trevor Daniels, or Trevor Baca?

HOWEVER, I'm quite willing to re-open the debate about licenses or
relicensing or whatever -- as long as it's done at a convenient
time.  Right now is not convenient.

> About other snippets,
> are you sure there is no other Mutopia snippet in the public domain or
> under some license other than FDL (say, CC) in the source tree?
> On the opposite, note that snippets from LSR are public domain, not FDL.

If something's in the public domain, then we can take it an stamp
a FDL onto it.  Since the initial spark was to clarify the license
situation, let's do that.

Or, we could add a boilerplate message that anything in
input/snippets/  is public domain.  Then we'd have

/*  GPLv2
/Documentation/*  FDL
/Documentation/snippets/*   public domain

where the most restrictive search pattern selects the license.


As for Mutopia, those are under input/*, and are thus slated for
demolition, in no small part due to the licensing issues.

> > [2] it would be very useful if somebody could identify anything
> > (other than texinfo.tex and input/* since those are slated for
> > demolition) that isn't GPLv2.
> 
> Junking texinfo.tex from our sources is looking for problems:

Sorry!  Horribly unclear English at play.  input/* is slated for
removal (other than input/regression/); texinfo.tex will of course
be remaining.

Cheers,
- Graham