On 2/26/2012 8:10 AM, D. Michael McIntyre wrote: > On Sunday, February 26, 2012, Dave Plater wrote: > >> ...Rosegarden has been marked GPLv2 or later for as long as I've been >> maintaining it for openSUSE but when I submitted 11.11.42 to factory the >> legal department license check said it was plain GPLv2.
Where did they find this? Do they have an audit we can look at? I did a search (grep -L -r) on the .h and .cpp files and all except for one header related to the pitch tracker have the string "or any later version". That one header is missing a GPL license of any kind, but its cpp file has one. Looks like a simple mistake. The COPYING file is missing (I think) the "or any later version" verbiage. Probably need to add that at the very top before the text of the GPL. I think the COPYING file right now is nothing other than the text of the GPL. It does not contain any statement about how Rosegarden is licensed. That's probably not good. GPLv2+ is fine with me. Ted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
