Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:31:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> Look at it this way: it's the *project* which is in the exposed,
> dangerous position, not the contributors. You're arguing it almost the
> opposite way.

That must be a misunderstanding. Perhaps as a result of reading too quickly.

I've pointed out that I've observed a lot of effort from the base
developers trying to track contributions in commit comments, in the bug
tracker, in the documentation, in inline credits, in copyright notices for
individuals.
In my first reply in this thread, I asked Petr what contribution(s) he
refers to. Whether it's a contribution that has been tracked with a
copyright notice or just in the list of patch authors or just somewhere
else such as in revision control. Why did I ask that? Because it would
be a clear case if his name appeared anywhere in the files (and I told
what I had found). On the contrary, if it's an unknown/unspecified
contribution, which may be gone meanwhile, details would be needed, or
else nobody could investigate whether it may have been ignored or not
tracked properly. The fact alone that I could not find his name anywhere
other than in the translations caused me to point out what I think may
have happened - never claiming that there may not be any legal risks.

I've been mentioned in the iptables/netfilter source code, but a grep of
the current source tarball in Rawhide doesn't find anything anymore.
It would need a closer (or very close) look to find out whether anything
is left. The file preambles/copyright notices don't give a hint.

> A lot of your arguments rely on notions of common sense,
> fair play and so on, which just isn't a good approach.

Of course not, if you're aiming at perfection and indefeasibility.