Hi Carlos,

On 2025-06-27T01:14:47+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 07:01:24PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > > Well, we got express permission for a third of the copyright holders in
> > > the last few months.  Also, we got no express notices in the contrary,
> > > so around two thirds have remained silent.
> > 
> > You should track down the copyright holders and get written approval,
> > or restore the copyright notices.
> > 
> > This is exactly the difficulty in maintaining such written notices.
> > 
> > And why they are no longer recommended.
> > 
> > > We could restore those that haven't expressely granted permission...
> > 
> > Yes please.
> > 
> > May I suggest doing a new release with the copyrights restored?
> > 
> > > The thing is, as someone else mentioned, removals happen also implicitly
> > > by moving text from one page to another and not copying copyright
> > > notices, so how much does it matter an intentional rewrite of the
> > > copyright notices into a different form (but which keeps their
> > > copyright, as part of the AUTHORS file), compared to an unintentional
> > > removal of copyright by moving the text (these do actually remove
> > > copyright, so these are the problematic ones).
> > 
> > Both are legally mistakes.
> > 
> > The common utterance is "As compliance approaches 100% cost approaches
> > infinity" :-)
> > 
> > However, you should not deny anyone the right to have their copyright
> > directly noted in the file, but you can encourage the generic use of
> > "Copyright the Foo Authors." You can deny the contribution entirely if
> > you wish on grounds that maintaining copyright statements is too much
> > work.
> 
> Sure, if anyone explicitly wants to retain a copyright notice, I'll do
> so (if it was old), or refuse to accept the patch (if it is new).
> 
> > > By rewriting the copyright notices, we'd actually be honoring the
> > > copyright, even when text is moved from page to page.  I think that is
> > > more important.  And since all explicit notices have granted us
> > > permission, even if some have remained silent (in some cases, their
> > > email probably isn't monitored anymore), I think we should go forward.
> > 
> > I agree, but you need permission from the authors.
> > 
> > I disagree that man-pages should go forward with the current changes.
> > 
> > May you please restore the copyright notices and cut a new release?
> 
> Hmmm, it'll take some time.  I need to stop and compare the both lists,
> which are rather long.  I don't promise it will happen soon, but I'll
> keep it in a TODO list.  I'll also try to do it at least after
> September, when I'll be meeting Michael in person, where I'll ask him
> about his copyright notices (which represent a huge percentage of the
> copyright notice lines).  That will reduce the work significantly.
> So, it might happen around the end of this year.

I have finished working on this.  I've restored old copyright notices
from contributors (individuals and otherwise) who have not expressed
content with the unified notices.

I've pushed to a branch for now:
<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/log/?h=license>

I'll work on the new release for the next few days, and will include
that commit in the release.


Have a lovely night!
Alex

> 
> Once I start doing that, I'll do another round of asking the remaining
> people about their copyright notices.  Hopefully, there'l l be few of
> them.
> 
> 
> Have a lovely day!
> Alex
> 
> -- 
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>