--- britt creamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Question for First Issue: > Is it possible to have all non FSF Copyright names > removed from all GNUstep code for this concern?
I know that all software I have developed in GNU projects has required explicit copyright assignment to the FSF (with a written document clearly stating the transfer of ownership). It's possible that the source you see was not updated with a proper FSF copyright header. <rant> > Notices: > - Black Duck protexIP is a trademark of Black Duck > Software in the United States, other countries, or > both. For more information please refer to > http://www.blackducksoftware.com I really despise these kinds of notations in e-mail and other documents! I'm not trying to single out Britt out of meanness, but seing this notice just reminded me how much I dislike the practice :-) </rant> As for the GORM issues -- they are valid concerns (which are shared for other FSF tools such as GNU Smalltalk, etc.) IIRC, Flex/Bison state explicitly that the generated code is not subject to the GPL. Doesn't GORM just build a binary blob indicating classes that should be woken up when the application starts? Is this really 'code' or 'linked software' that would relate to the license concerns? -Brent _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
