Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

[Bruce Korb]

On 05/04/11 03:20, Jim Meyering wrote:
> However, adding a new name anywhere in source files for each
> new author who contributes a copyright-significant change would not
> be worth the trouble.

What I think is abundantly clear is that a notation is needed
regarding who has relicensing authority.  If that is handed
over to FSF, then someone at FSF would have to be responsible
for handling the issues as they come up.  If there is nobody
to do that, then, perhaps, the project's "steering committee"
could be granted the authority.  Something.  Anything.  Just
not spinning wheels and emails saying, "I think he should be
doing it.  Wait.  No, you need to ask that person.  I don't
know, go read the source code patch history."  It is clear
that that isn't working very well.

> RMS could do it. But we don't want to bug him for "small" things
> like this that we can as well handle inside bug-gnulib.
>
> Bruno

Is it a "small" thing if a half dozen engineers spend days
exchanging emails trying to figure it out?  Not so small to me.....

> On 05/04/11 03:05, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> > > >>     39 Paul Eggert
> That's a bit terse; I'm not sure what I'm being asked.

You are presumed to be involved in some subset of 39 source files
that have base names of:
  {acosl,asinl,atanl,cosl,expl,logl,sinl,sqrtl,tanl,isfinite,\
tmpfile,fflush,futimens,nanosleep,getgroups,tzset,strtoimax,strtoumax}

and if you object to having your work on any of these modules relicensed.

Scorecard, by my reckoning:

OK:     3 Ben Pfaff
OK:    54 Bruno Haible
>       1 Derek R. Price
OK:    34 Eric Blake
OK:    67 Jim Meyering
>       1 Paolo Bonzini
OK:    39 Paul Eggert
>       1 Ralf Wildenhues
OK:     1 Simon Josefsson

and "OK" means that those authors have granted relicensing permission
for their work in all modules currently identified as "posix related",
as denoted by the base names noted above.

So, if I've not mis-stated nor missed anything, we only wait for Derek,
Paolo and Ralf.