i believe there was talk about _exactly_ this few months ago on this list. It was resolved by someone contacting Adam and getting clearance for the code he wrote. Now someone must check if there are any other files in the tree and clear up all of the cases.
So ... you only need time. I've wrote a few files in CVS version... and as far as i am concerned they can be licenced under GPL 2 or any later revision. bye andraz On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:40 +0100, muzzol wrote: > hi again, > > im sad to see no developers are answering. this is really serious, in > fact it could be a GPL license violation and is as simple to resolv as > applying a simple patch. > > this is mainly focused to developers but i would like to hear oppinions > here. > > > > True. So why hasnt this been done already? > > > > Ive been told the license file in the root dir is correct but > > insufficient for Debian packaging rules. > > > > So if that license file is correct, and the devs are *sure* *every* file > > and part of code is GPL we should be able to make the assumption that > > the files are cool and add the header to the files. > > > > We have permission to do this but it would be better to work upstream to > > get this done. ie: a patch or something. > > > > Cory > > > > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
