29 Jul
2009
29 Jul
'09
1:56 a.m.
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 23:18:03 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:01 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no license file in
it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
And way to go putting words in my mouth. I never said, or even hinted
what you are saying. Reading a little too much into things are we.
Raymond
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:03 David Robillard
wrote:
No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL violation
on Prof. Keller's part. 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 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.