csound manual

[Felipe Sateler]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:00, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:16:07AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 20:21, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:14:22PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:12, Felipe Sateler <fsateler at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:00, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please see http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceHistory.html for a
>>>>> short summary of the csound manual.
>>>>
>>>> And BTW, there is code in debian/rules that parses that page to generate
>>>> a non exhaustive list of contributors. It is currently commented out,
>>>> though. It is in common-post-build-indep.
>>>
>>> I lost you here.  What is it you are trying to say?
>>>
>>> You insist that it is ok to cover most authors as "and others" instead of
>>> listing their names explicitly in debian/copyright, yet you ask me to go
>>> investigate the details. Why?
>>
>> Sorry for being confusing. I have to admit I was very unclear.
>>
>> The page lists the complicated history of the manual. The important part
>> is that the licensing was some non commercial license, and MIT held the
>> rights to change that (Barry Vercoe et al were working at MIT while
>> developing csound and the manual). Finally the licensing was changed to
>> GFDL, and the manual moved to a sourceforge CVS repository, where the
>> current development is still done. There is no way we can track who did what
>> change to which file, but the best we can do is expand the "Andres Cabrera
>> and others" to a list of 35 names and still have the "and others".
>
> I think at least we should document the situation in debian/copyright, then.
>  Not needed to include all history, only status quo is relevant (if possible
> without laying it all out)

How to do that in the dep5 format?

>. And not all contributors are relevant, only
> those claiming copyright.

I believe this is wrong. Authors have copyright have they explicitly
claimed it or not.

>
>
>> And BTW, the code is broken :p.
>
> How so?  Something I did?

No, merely the page changed so the sed invocation was not correct.

-- 

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler