On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20 laseray@gmail.com 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