> Copyright (c) 2000, 2001, W. Schelter
> Copyright (c) 2002, J. Amundson, W. Jenker, D. Stanger, R. Toy
> ???Copyright (c) 2003, J. Amundson, D. Billinghurst, D. Stanger, R. Toy
> Copyright (c) 2004, J. Amundson, D. Billinghurst, R. Dodier, D. Stanger,
> V. Toth, R. Toy, V.V. Zhytnikov
> Copyright (c) 2005, J. Amundson, D. Billinghurst, R. Dodier, M.R.
> Riotorto, D. Stanger, V. Toth, R. Toy, B. Willis, V.V. Zhytnikov
> Copyright (c) 2006, J.B. Abreu, J. Amundson, D. Billinghurst, R. Dodier,
> M.R.Riotorto, D. Stanger, V. Toth, R. Toy, V. van Nek, J. Villate,
> A. Vodopivec, B. Willis, V.V. Zhytnikov
> Copyright (c) 2007, J.B. Abreu, J. Amundson, D. Billinghurst, R. Dodier,
> D. Gildea, M.R.Riotorto, D. Stanger, V. Toth, R. Toy, V. van Nek,
> J. Villate, A. Vodopivec, B. Willis, V.V. Zhytnikov
> Copyright (c) 2008, J.B. Abreu, J. Amundson, D. Billinghurst, R. Dodier,
> A. Eder, D. Gildea, M.R.Riotorto, D. Stanger, V. Toth, R. Toy,
> V. van Nek, J. Villate, A. Vodopivec, B. Willis, V.V. Zhytnikov
>
> what do you think?
This is a good start. However, the list above should be limited only
to those who made original contributions. For a derivative work,
the copyright is held by the copyright holder of the original work.
A translation (Russian, Spanish, or Portuguese) is a derived work.
I am pretty sure minor changes (format, typos, rewording) also create
a derived work.
Thanks a lot for working on this list. I know it is tedious,
but I think it is a valuable effort.
> The next question will be: should we keep the "GPL v.2 or later", or
> should we already use "GPL v.3 or later"?
We (current contributors) are not in position to change the license
from what Bill Schelter assigned, namely GPL v2.
If you want to change it, you will have to get approval from Schelter's
estate, and everyone who has made original contributions since then.
I'm not a lawyer either, but there is an ancient priciple in law that
if neither the state nor anyone else objects to an action, then there
is no basis for illegality. This worthy principle is maintained in
Robert's Rules of Order, which is sometimes the only way a committee
can make forward progress.
If someone were brave enough to operate on the assumption that any of
the contributors who have claimed copyright intended the contribution
to be freely reusable, perhaps providing credit is maintained, then
the materials could be reproduced or republished with the existing
copyright notices with the realistic hope that no one would object.
That might be true for all the current known contributors, but it's
harder to guess about estates entities that live in cardboard boxes in
lawyer offices.
Think about that the next time you cross an empty street against the
light. It's dangerous, but it might work.
Or one could find some server in some country that has no effective
and enforceable copyright protection, go through an anonymous proxy,
and publish there. This would be reprehensible for any IP that
someone actually claimed, but it would appear that everyone who has
contributed to Maxima has intended their contributions to be freely
reusable. Who would object?