Outstanding issues for LFS-6.2

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Jun 25 18:15:33 PDT 2006

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>> Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
>>> show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time.  The
>>> current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
>> I would really like to get this into 6.2 so the BLFS and LFS books use
>> the same license.  I did submit a patch that fixes the book.  The only
>> thing that takes time is the decision to do it.  We've been sitting on
>> our collective hands on this for over two months.  How long does it take
>> to make the decision?
> Well, I've already made the decision.  I think it makes sense for the
> LFS book to have the same license as the BLFS book.  However, I don't
> think I have the authority to change the license without the consensus
> of the copyright holders, which, despite the copyright notice in the
> book, isn't just Gerard.  So, we'd have to go back and find all those
> that have contributed substantial changes to the book and ask for their
> permission to change the license.  I don't think this can be done within
> the currently planned time-scales of the 6.2 release, but if you want to
> prove me wrong on that, feel free :-)

OK, I'll try.  I looked at the museum and the change logs disn't start
naming the change authors until version 3.0.  Checking all the major
versions since then, I came up with:

Jeremy (Not Huntwork?)
Jeremy Huntwork
Mark Hymers
marcheerdink  ??
Alex (Not sure if this is Alexander)

I propose to send all a message asking for a statement assigning of the
copyright for their contributions to Gerard.  I'll have to research the
email addresses.

Would that be sufficient?

  -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list