On 2009-02-26 at 16:23:27 -0500, Eric Moret wrote:
> The confusion comes from the upstream Paint.NET licensing which is in limbo.
> On the one hand their license says pdn is under an MIT license but on the
> other hand they have removed the link to the download source code archive
> and posted a c
On 2009-02-26 at 11:12:38 -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> The problem is that this SNAI licsense is not listed under good licenses
> here:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
> so I wanted to get it cleared, but the link to the license in the
> headers is a dead link.
So, in looking into thi
On 2009-02-26 at 14:21:24 -0500, Eric Moret wrote:
> This is the mono paint tree; that tree has not undergone a renaming of the
> tarball dist target nor any of the embedded resulting binaries.
Wow, that seems like a really bad idea. I'd go so far as to suggest that
upstream rename things to avoi
On 2009-02-26 at 13:52:24 -0500, Eric Moret wrote:
> The current tree does not seem to have gpc mentioned anywhere.
Is that Paint.net or mono-paint? The naming is not clear.
~spot
___
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com
https:/
On 2009-02-26 at 13:21:01 -0500, Eric Moret wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I looked for this in the source tree but could not identify the offending
> GPC code. What I suspect is that the license we are looking at (
> http://www.getpaint.net/license.html) is for the current version (3.36) of
> Paint.NET which
On 2009-02-26 at 9:59:36 -0500, Dan Horák wrote:
> Hi Spot,
>
> you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public
> License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was
> opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express
> our (or bet
Hi,
The HBAAPI project:
http://hbaapi.sourceforge.net/
uses a license called the SNIA Public License Version 1.0. In the source
header there is this:
* License:
* The contents of this file are subject to the SNIA Public License
* Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may not use this f
Hi Spot,
you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public
License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was
opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express
our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is
no
On 2009-02-25 at 17:57:01 -0500, Eric Moret wrote:
> Thank you for a quick reply. I have already created a request on the fedora
> artwork design service page for replacement of icons and resources:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService#Paint.NET_icon_replacement
>
> Despite
