Re: [Rosegarden-devel] Re rosegarden's license.

2012-02-26 Thread D. Michael McIntyre
On Sunday, February 26, 2012, Dave Plater wrote: ...Rosegarden has been marked GPLv2 or later for as long as I've been maintaining it for openSUSE but when I submitted 11.11.42 to factory the legal department license check said it was plain GPLv2. I must point out that GPLv2 only can open a

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] Re rosegarden's license.

2012-02-26 Thread Ted Felix
On 2/26/2012 8:10 AM, D. Michael McIntyre wrote: On Sunday, February 26, 2012, Dave Plater wrote: ...Rosegarden has been marked GPLv2 or later for as long as I've been maintaining it for openSUSE but when I submitted 11.11.42 to factory the legal department license check said it was plain

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] Re rosegarden's license.

2012-02-26 Thread Chris Cannam
On 26 February 2012 20:25, Ted Felix t...@tedfelix.com wrote:   The COPYING file is missing (I think) the or any later version verbiage.  Probably need to add that at the very top before the text of the GPL.  I think the COPYING file right now is nothing other than the text of the GPL.  It

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] [Rosegarden-bugs] SF.net SVN: rosegarden:[12843] trunk/rosegarden/src

2012-02-26 Thread D. Michael McIntyre
On Sunday, February 26, 2012, tedfe...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: - Launch rg - Arm track 2 (tracks 1 and 2 are now armed) - Change track 2's instrument to General MIDI Device #1 - Note that both tracks are still armed with the older builds, not so after this change. Nice! --