On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0700, Robert Keller wrote:
> > Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how transparent this
> > situation is.
>
> Out of curiosity I checked. Assuming the entire source code of the
> project is contained in what you get with:
>
> svn co https://impro-visor.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/impro-visor
>
> at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer non-authoritative
> opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL
> version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF.
The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were
to distribute it.
> The only thing even worth mentioning is that you may want to explicitly
> specify the license of the data files iff you want them to be something
> other than the GPLv2+. This is just a matter of taste (some prefer a
> more liberal license for "input files"), and not a compliance problem.
>
> In summary: As far as I can tell, the sky is not falling, and your LAD
> karma is roughly +78000 LOC. Chicken Little, whose LAD karma seems to
> be 0 at best, may safely and wisely be ignored.
Except for the big minus 1000000 for still violating the GPL on the Yahoo
group. You missed that part.
Raymond
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jul 29 08:15:06 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 29 2009 - 08:15:06 EEST