On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote: > On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20 [email protected] wrote: >> On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi wrote: >>> On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >> >> This was not the point though. Just pointing out that a user/ >> developer >> could inadvertently start distributing packages that do violate. As >> far >> as I am concerned, a little bit more diligence should be directed >> to these >> kinds of issues before distribution takes place. In the Impro-Visor 4 >> source package I distribute (on Improvisor at SF) I have fixed this >> so that >> it won't happen. >> >> On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the >> copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I >> have the >> 2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have >> copyrights >> indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39 >> headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his >> educational institution. What is the situation with that? >> >> Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the >> institution or >> this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their >> respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see >> everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights >> indicated. >> Some clarification would be helpful. > > Bob Keller has to comment on that for the precise situation, but it > may well > be that student's work in his institution, are copyrighted by the > institution. > > sincerely, > Marije
We employ the students, so we own the copyright. Bob Robert Keller Csilla & Walt Foley Professor Computer Science Harvey Mudd College _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
