[Slackbuilds-users] abandoning all my slackbuilds

[Didier Spaier]

Le 25/04/2022 à 20:59, Logan Rathbone a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 02:33:53PM EDT, Donald Cooley wrote:
>> On April 25, 2022 9:01:16 AM CDT, "B. Watson" <urchlay at slackware.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022, chytraeu at sdf.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've abandoned all my slackbuilds.
>>>
>>> Will it bother you if the people who take over maintenance of your
>>> builds decide to change the license?
>>
>> Seems unnecessary to change the liberal license. If you want to change the license retain my name as the author.
> 
> That doesn't necessarily answer the question, because some licences
> don't require proof of original authorship to be retained.  As well, if
> re-licensing is to occur, someone needs to hold the copyright going
> forward from as at the point of changing of the licence.
> 
> Would it be agreeable to you for new maintainers to put a blurb saying
> "Original Author: Donald Cooley" or equivalent as a courtesy, and to
> retain your name as copyright holder from [whatever year] to 2022?

[OT]Tempest in a tea pot in my NRO (Not Requested Opinion):
1. B. Watson often uses the WTFL (rather a copy left than a copyright), which at
least has the advantage to be less verbose that the text in the templates.
2. I wonder why the SlackBuilds on SBo need to mention a license, while the
PKBUILDs on Arch do not (but package, maintainer and contributors are named),
with no issue that I am aware of (this is just an example). Does anyone
seriously think that there is a legal risk for a (generally small) file which is
of no use out of context? Time and space wasted.
I am no more in concern, but still...[/OT]