On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0700, Robert Keller wrote: > > Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how transparent this > > situation is. > > Out of curiosity I checked. Assuming the entire source code of the > project is contained in what you get with: > > svn co https://impro-visor.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/impro-visor > > at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer non-authoritative > opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL > version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF.
The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist package results in something that violates the GPL if a user were to distribute it. > The only thing even worth mentioning is that you may want to explicitly > specify the license of the data files iff you want them to be something > other than the GPLv2+. This is just a matter of taste (some prefer a > more liberal license for "input files"), and not a compliance problem. > > In summary: As far as I can tell, the sky is not falling, and your LAD > karma is roughly +78000 LOC. Chicken Little, whose LAD karma seems to > be 0 at best, may safely and wisely be ignored. Except for the big minus 1000000 for still violating the GPL on the Yahoo group. You missed that part. Raymond _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
