29 Jul
2009
29 Jul
'09
12:54 a.m.
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0700, Robert Keller
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.
Anyone who cares to examine the facts can see how
transparent this
situation is.
Out of curiosity I checked. Assuming the entire source code of the
project is contained in what you get with:
svn co https://impro-visor.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/impro-visor
at revision 12, this project is (in my non-lawyer non-authoritative
opinion, etc), very obviously and correctly licensed under the GPL
version 2 or later, in the way recommended by the FSF. The only thing even worth mentioning is that you may
want to explicitly
specify the license of the data files iff you want them to be something
other than the GPLv2+. This is just a matter of taste (some prefer a
more liberal license for "input files"), and not a compliance problem.
In summary: As far as I can tell, the sky is not falling, and your LAD
karma is roughly +78000 LOC. Chicken Little, whose LAD karma seems to
be 0 at best, may safely and wisely be ignored.
Except for the big minus 1000000 for still violating the GPL on the Yahoo
group. You missed that part.
Raymond