From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu (scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu [129.13.231.82]) by fantadrom.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0d53336c for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:16:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de ([172.22.63.82] helo=hekate.usta.de) by scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (envelope-from ) id 1gRKUQ-000448-MP; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 18:16:08 +0100 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1gRKUQ-0000MB-Ih; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 18:16:06 +0100 Received: from athene.usta.de ([172.24.96.10]) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gRKUQ-00020x-EE; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 18:16:06 +0100 Received: from localhost (athene.usta.de [local]) by athene.usta.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id ec1345bf; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 18:16:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 18:16:06 +0100 From: Ingo Schwarze To: Mark Harris Cc: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv Subject: Re: mandoc.css license Message-ID: <20181126171606.GD82448@athene.usta.de> References: <923c3207-224b-0345-3215-8f457d613cd1@gmail.com> <20181126152945.GC82448@athene.usta.de> X-Mailinglist: mandoc-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Hi Mark, Mark Harris wrote on Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:43:58AM -0800: > The LICENSE file mentions "all code and documentation contained > in the mandoc toolkit" so that was the reason for trying to guess > whether this CSS file was "code". I see. The LICENSE file only used that wording in the following context, though: With the exceptions noted below, all code and documentation contained in the mandoc toolkit is protected by the Copyright of the following developers: So even if CSS weren't code (i think it is), that would only have left the authorship / ownership of Copyright of mandoc.css unstated, the sentence The mandoc distribution as a whole is distributed by its developers under the following license: does not have any such qualification. But i see how the wording could make people ponder unintended subtleties, so i simplified the wording with the commit below. Yours, Ingo Log Message: ----------- Mark Harris pointed out that people might have doubts whether all files contained in the mandoc toolkit are "code and documentation", and whether this is of any consequence for licensing, so clarify. Modified Files: -------------- mandoc: LICENSE Revision Data ------------- Index: LICENSE =================================================================== RCS file: /home/cvs/mandoc/mandoc/LICENSE,v retrieving revision 1.20 retrieving revision 1.21 diff -LLICENSE -LLICENSE -u -p -r1.20 -r1.21 --- LICENSE +++ LICENSE @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ $Id$ -With the exceptions noted below, all code and documentation -contained in the mandoc toolkit is protected by the Copyright -of the following developers: +With the exceptions noted below, all non-trivial files contained +in the mandoc toolkit are protected by the Copyright of the following +developers: Copyright (c) 2008-2012, 2014 Kristaps Dzonsons Copyright (c) 2010-2018 Ingo Schwarze @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Copyright (c) 2004 Ted Unangst Copyright (c) 2003, 2007, 2008, 2014 Jason McIntyre -See the individual source files for information about who contributed +See the individual files for information about who contributed to which file during which years. -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv