25.12.2005, 3:51:15, Brian Harring wrote:
> Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo, > that's not the issue. > The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however > horrid the license is). > Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of the codec, or > someone manages to track down the original author and gets the code > converted to a different license. Latter still is tricky, since any > contributions to the project, you would need all authors to sign off > on the new license- this is assuming the project doesn't do > centralized copyright, and assuming people have actually contributed > to it beyond original author. Not exactly what I meant. There's actually no (clear) license, the original one would apply to the original code, not to the patches submitted after it's been "re-licensed" under LGPL. Since upstream is dead, we can't ship the original code (leaving the question why we should do it at all aside), also we can't exactly find all the people who contributed the patches under LGPL, and there's no way to contribute the code back to upstream as the original license requires. Such code is a real "bargain" to commit :P Rewrite from scratch, that's what left here. So much you get if you start with a bullshit license originally and then go MIA. :/ -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
pgp5tbo6BzPB3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
