Hi Christian, On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 15:16 +0200, Christian Persch wrote: > Both of these claims are false.
Wow - that is bad. Reverting immediately, sorry [ and thanks for picking this up so quickly ! ]. > e-spinner.[ch] is derived from ephy-spinner.[ch] from Epiphany, and I > hold the copyright on much of the code in it. It is licensed under the Sure; and indeed it clearly had your copyright header at the top; Argh - Sankar - why are there two headers at the top of that file ? Anyhow - that is a really dumb mistake on our part, terribly sorry - I'll go back and re-read each of the patches: wow it makes me mad ... The background to at least part of the honest mistake here is that the file was clearly re-checked into svn by someone who has assigned copyright, and has subsequently not been modified by anyone who has not assigned or approved the change. I try to catch the other cases in the patches with a grep - but this rather relies on people updating the existing header (the normal case) rather than just prepending another ;-( > Most importantly, I was not asked for permission to re-license this code > to the LGPL 2 + LGPL 3; nor have I given such permission. Yep; will review all other commits first & come back to you cap in hand in a bit. Having said that I don't believe the Eazel copyright will be transferable, so - we had already flagged e-spinner for some re-work; advice appreciated there. Sorry again, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolutionemail@example.com http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers