On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 08:42 +1000, Jonathan Matthew wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:57:14PM +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller > wrote: <snip> > > So I am wondering how the current maintainers and developers feel about > > adding a clause to the license like the one in Totem - > > > > "The Totem project hereby grant permission for non-gpl compatible GStreamer > > plugins to be used and distributed together with GStreamer and Totem. This > > permission are above and beyond the permissions granted by the GPL license > > Totem is covered by." > > > > In addition to allowing for this MP3 plugin it makes it possible to > > distribute the Monkeys Audio plugin with Rhythmbox and also the > > future proprietary plugins of Fluendo (and others) > > As much as I dislike software patents, I recognise that making life > difficult for users doesn't help. I'd like the clause to be added.
Same here, and still living in a place where they don't apply... > > If people are interested/willing to do this I don't mind helping out with > > mailing former contributors etc., but I know that there might also be some > > development work needed as one of the former contributors is no longer > > with us. > > How thorough are we supposed to be in this? Do contributors of patches > need to consent, or just people listed in AUTHORS and in copyright > messages in the source files? For Totem, we only contacted contributors of non-trivial patches. Christian drove this, because I was too lazy to do it. I'm pretty sure that there aren't that many people who contributed this type of patches to Rhythmbox. The earlier, the easier it would be :) --- Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
