Last time I looked, GTK, which is at the core of the code that I looked
at, is under LGPL, which is explicitly banned from Apache Projects:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?
[...]
* GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3
So this means, that *everything* that is GTK dependent *must* go from
the Apache repos.
Up to now, Bluesky has not yet shown up on the incubator main page
(http://incubator.apache.org/), has not reported and I don't see a code
grant either in foundation/officers/grants.txt.
The fact that actual GPL license files:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bluesky/trunk/c%2B%2B/tserver/COPYING
have been checked in, seems to imply that this is a code dump above everything
else. Could anyone closer involved with BlueSky please check this?
Thanks Bernd, for noticing this.
Thanks
Henning
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 20:52 +0200, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Hi,
I am concerned about the recent commit from the BlueSky project,
recorded as revision 676177.
This bulk commit looks to me like GPLed code from a third party
project has been taken, being modified to obfuscate the origins of
this code and then being committed to svn without any prior IP
clearance.
In detail:
* most directories contain a COPYING file with the GPL in it.
* some files contain copyright notices from people and organisations
not involved with the project, probably the original authors
* files like AUTHORS, README probably have been emptied before the
commit to remove any reference to their origins
* the ASL headers have been added in follow-up commits.
I'd like to know from the BlueSky committers what is their own code
and what is taken from other projects (which ones)? Who are the
respective copyright owners and have they been contacted?
I'd propose to remove the code from svn and re-code the project based
on committer's own contributions.
In addition, BlueSky failed to properly report to the board for half a
year now. Now, a report has been posted to bluesky-dev some days ago,
but I could not spot it in todays report from Noel posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My on-list concerns about xplayer were not addressed in this report.
xplayer seems to be (I did not take a closer look) a crucial component
for this software, the committers said they would exclude it,
resulting in the fact that now the software lacks audio/video
capabilities. It looks like xplayer is derived from GPL'ed mplayer and
the FFmpeg library has also been mentioned, both said to be having
patent issues (that's what I read on wikipedia, I didn't check beyond
that). I propose to work around this by using vorbis and related
technologies.
We (as the incubator) should mentor this project more intensively.
Thanks,
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | JEE, Linux, Unix
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache Java Software
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design|
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350
Gesellschaftssitz: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen
char name_buf[257]; /* max unix filename is 256, right? */
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
