discuss: default licence
Subject:
Re: [discuss] default licence
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
22 Sep 2008 12:48:15 +0100
Message-Id: <20080920060621.GD2343@davespc>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 08:54:01AM +0200, jdd wrote:
> David Lawyer a ?crit :
>
> > The above would not be in the license.
>
> agree. It should be in a page linked from the footer of each page
> (manifesto?)
>
> > There may be more than one author.
>
> yes and no. It's veryu difficult to deal with several people. So one
> of the authors have to be shown as the main author, responsible at
> least of the licence of the hole doc
OK, but that persons may also be the maintainer. I think most of our
docs just give an author and if they are being maintained, then the
author is the maintainer. So since maintainers are not specified,
shouldn't we just stick to author(s). Of course it's a lot simpler to
just deal with one author, but in a few cases there are more than one
and to complicate matters further, some (all all) the authors may be
inactive or even dead. Where one remains, the others may have never
given that one person ownership of the doc so that one person can't
change the license legally.
>
> > there are two authors. In some cases, there is so much change that
> > the original author is not really a co-author anymore and should not
> > be listed as an author, but still needs to be mentioned and given
> > credit for initiating the doc.
>
> this can only be done if the licence allows it (or if the original
> author accepts)
True. I was thinking of this at the time I wrote the above but didn't
bother to add it.
David Lawyer
