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:

Gerard
Matthew
Archaic
Manuel
Ken
Jeremy (Not Huntwork?)
Jeremy Huntwork
Jim
Ryan
Alexander
Mark Hymers
marcheerdink  ??
Greg
Timothy
Alex (Not sure if this is Alexander)
jwrober
winkie

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