Johannes Meixner

I am not at all a software lincenses expert. I also think I vaguely remember that to change a license one needs to get agreements from all authors which is...

@pcahyna @lzaoral I (perhaps falsely assumed) you could then (relatively easily) drop the old and outdated doc/rear-release-notes-until-2.7.txt from your RPM (or perhaps replace it with your own that contains only...

@pcahyna regarding your https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/3302#issuecomment-2333910077 Ah! I didn't have the SRPM in mind. But wouldn't it help to remove that file in the RPM spec file section '%prep' because I think...

What about this simple and straightforward way: Remove the old one in ReaR 3.0 - i.e.: For ReaR 3.0 start from scratch with a new doc/rear-release-notes.txt Reasons: The old one...

@pcahyna do you have a URL to documentation that confirm this? Next week - if time permits - I will try to find out more about how '%prep' actually works...

I will try to get this done for the "ReaR 2.8" milestone so that Linux distributors can "just distribute" ReaR without any licensing troubles.

In a current git clone those are the only commits to doc/rear-release-notes.txt which are not from Gratien or Schlomo or from me: ``` localhost:~/rear.github.master # git log -p \ --follow...

@gdha are you perhaps still in contact with Dag Wieers? If yes, could you ask Dag if he agrees to a license change of rear-release-notes.txt from its current license `CC...

@abbbi thank you for your help, in particular for your debugging what the root cause was, cf. https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/3288#issuecomment-2241288862

I assume it is sufficiently answered because "no news is good news". (If not, reopen it with continuative information.)