> The basic reasoning is that there are close to none 
> explicit copyright claims, and they seem inconsistent.
> For example, if the manual was copyright 1986-1992 MIT, 
> and 2003 by Kevin Conder, why can MIT relicense 
> the whole thing as GFDL in 2003? At least Kevin's 
> approval would be needed. Why are there claims on 
> the Alternative manual in 2005, when the history 
> says that by then the Canonical manual was 
> already on sourceforge?

Hello, Kevin Conder here! Just so everyone is in sync, we're 
talking about the manual's Copyright Notice page.
http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceCopy.html

The question is whether my work on the Alternative Csound Reference Manual 
(ACRM) is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The 
GFDL's text is here.
http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/examples/fdl.txt

The Copyright Notice page tells the story. I modified the Public Csound 
Reference Manual to create the ACRM. During this time, MIT declared that 
Csound's source was to be available under the GNU Public License and its 
documentation under the GFDL. So I placed the ACRM under the GFDL. Since 
it was a modification, I had to comply with the section 4, Modifications, 
of the GFDL.

To comply with GFDL Section 4-E, "E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for 
your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.", I added a 
copyright notice. To comply with GFDL Section 4-F, "Include, immediately after 
the copyright notices, a license notice...", I added a license notice granting 
permission to my modifications using the GNU Free Documentation License, 
Version 1.2 or any later version.

So all of my modifications, including the examples, are covered under the GFDL. 
I checked-in the source for the ACRM to Sourceforge. Does that clear things up?

-- 
Kevin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 23:22, Kevin  wrote:
>> The basic reasoning is that there are close to none
>> explicit copyright claims, and they seem inconsistent.
>> For example, if the manual was copyright 1986-1992 MIT,
>> and 2003 by Kevin Conder, why can MIT relicense
>> the whole thing as GFDL in 2003? At least Kevin's
>> approval would be needed. Why are there claims on
>> the Alternative manual in 2005, when the history
>> says that by then the Canonical manual was
>> already on sourceforge?
>
> Hello, Kevin Conder here! Just so everyone is in sync, we're
> talking about the manual's Copyright Notice page.
> http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/PrefaceCopy.html
>
> The question is whether my work on the Alternative Csound Reference Manual
> (ACRM) is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The
> GFDL's text is here.
> http://www.csounds.com/manual/html/examples/fdl.txt
>
> The Copyright Notice page tells the story. I modified the Public Csound
> Reference Manual to create the ACRM. During this time, MIT declared that
> Csound's source was to be available under the GNU Public License and its
> documentation under the GFDL. So I placed the ACRM under the GFDL. Since
> it was a modification, I had to comply with the section 4, Modifications,
> of the GFDL.
>
> To comply with GFDL Section 4-E, "E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for
> your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.", I added a
> copyright notice. To comply with GFDL Section 4-F, "Include, immediately after
> the copyright notices, a license notice...", I added a license notice granting
> permission to my modifications using the GNU Free Documentation License,
> Version 1.2 or any later version.
>
> So all of my modifications, including the examples, are covered under the GFDL.
> I checked-in the source for the ACRM to Sourceforge. Does that clear things up?


I believe this does clear things up. Just one question, I think. When
did the ACRM become the Canonical csound manual?

-- 

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net