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,


 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to