Kevin Brosius wrote: > Well, I certainly don't speak for all the developers... But those who > use Ubuntu and Debian are the ones concerned. I'm sad to see they have > not stepped up and provided a patch. > _If_ the way the current license is structured is wrong, it concerns everyone.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html >From the link: "This statement should go near the beginning of every source file, close to the copyright notices." So does this mean per file or in the root dir? The consensus within Debian seems to be every file. Also if you read the other posts, muzzol has stepped up and offered to do the patch if needed. > You suggested that having this done would increase the number of > developers for Cinelerra. I find this hard to believe, if there aren't > any developers on those distros already willing to work on integration. > "Developers" was probably the wrong word. Defiantly more users and a larger spotlight on the project. > Sorry if this sounds unreasonable, but we all have things we would like > to see done. Patching dozens of files is not one I personally plan on > tackling. > Thats too bad. We could use the help. :) It actually looks to be around 2000 files from what Im told. > Consider this... It would be easier for CinelerraCV if the GPL license > was applied first to Heroine's tree. To that end, someone would need to > generate a patch against Heroine's sources and submit it upstream. Then > it could be merged at our next release from upstream (2.2? 3.0?) > > Who using Debian or Ubuntu would like to step up and tackle that? > > Kevin > > (I'm also sad you have not learned how to bottom post. :D ) > Like I said, muzzol has stepped up. We just need to hear from devs. So if we could get a chat going to see what can be done to better things on all sides this would be awesome. > > On 2007-01-30 22:40, muzzol wrote: > >> hi again, >> >> im sad to see no developers are answering. this is really serious, in >> fact it could be a GPL license violation and is as simple to resolv as >> applying a simple patch. >> >> this is mainly focused to developers but i would like to hear oppinions >> here. >> >> >> >>> True. So why hasnt this been done already? >>> >>> Ive been told the license file in the root dir is correct but >>> insufficient for Debian packaging rules. >>> >>> So if that license file is correct, and the devs are *sure* *every* file >>> and part of code is GPL we should be able to make the assumption that >>> the files are cool and add the header to the files. >>> >>> We have permission to do this but it would be better to work upstream to >>> get this done. ie: a patch or something. >>> >>> Cory >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Cinelerra mailing list > [email protected] > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
