On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 00:04 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 July 2009 23:18:03 David Robillard wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:01 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL violation > > > on Prof. Keller's part. > > > > Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no license file > > in it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion. But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating and not Keller. sincerely, Marije _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
