Le mercredi 17 mai 2017 à 14:55 +, Frederic Crozat a écrit :
> Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik a
> écrit :
> > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite
> > complicated, I
> > and Carlos are planning a move t
On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:13 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> There are few by error.
> The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and
> the threatics part from gnome-builder.
> However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the
> past with git-archive-all (GPLv3+)
On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:20 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only
> or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions.
That’s fair.
> I'm also not opening the
> can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
> (such as
On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera
> wrote:
> > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-
> > only
> > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening
> > the
> > can of worms that
Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik a écrit :
> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
>
> Hi,
>
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
>
> The codebase has files under several
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera
wrote:
If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only
or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening the
can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
(such as proprietary, or patent-enc
On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 17:01 +0300, Ernestas Kulik wrote:
> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
>
> Hi,
>
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated,
> I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
>
> The codebase has files under se
(Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
Hi,
As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I
and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
GPLv3+.
The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the
Hi,
Nautilus has been implicitly licensed under GPLv3 for the last couple
of years, since some sources
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
