Follow-up Comment #4, task #9014 (project administration): Thanks for pointing out the issues :-). I have already started contributing to Free Software even before the code is on a public CVS. I have reported an issue with the Scintilla development team and have contacted whoever had emails in the comments sections of the files regarding the license.
Ref: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2518216&group_id=2439&atid=102439 Regarding the remaining files that do not have notices, I have filtered down the list to the following Autogenerated ./config.h.in ./doc/Makefile.in ./src/Makefile.in ./Makefile.in ./pixmaps/Makefile.in ./data/Makefile.in ---- Since these are derived from GPLed files, they should be fine right? ---- I checked the source of grep and these files have similar notices in grep as we have here. ---- I was a bit confused when you said first that they are non-trivial and then ---- you mentioned that they are derived. PO Files ./po/gphpedit.pot ./po/de.po ---- Both these have - "This file is distributed under the same license as the gphpedit package." ---- Is that enough? ./po/POTFILES.in ---- Can you please take a look at ./po/Makefile.in.in and see if that is fine. Application Icon ./pixmaps/gphpedit.png ---- Since this was created by the original author who released the package under GPL, this is under GPL. ---- I have removed the other binary as it was not needed in the code. Even otherwise it ---- was the scintilla.so library derived from the same scintilla code base I have uploaded the modified tarball to the same location http://www.gphpedit.org/sites/default/files/gphpedit-0.9.91-5.tar.gz Thanks once again. Cheers Anoop _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?9014> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/
