From: Mike F. <va...@ge...> - 2011-01-20 23:47:17
|
On Thursday, January 20, 2011 18:37:05 Marek Peca wrote: > > on to the fun topic of licensing. i see there is a stapl/COPYING file in > > here. either all of the source is released under the GPL-2 (and thus > > this dedicated COPYING is useless and should be punted), or we cannot > > merge it. any code going into urjtag must be GPL-2 compliant. > > I understand. I have read the license, but haven't examined it in depth. > For a first sight, it seems to me to be compatible with GPLv2. However, we > are not 100% sure, so we are providing the patch with a proper licence > inside. If the UrJTAG maintainers agree with my oppinion, that the license > is GPLv2 compatible, then it is OK to remove the COPYING file, indeed. > There is a notice about Altera origins and Actel modifications in README, > so there really needn't be the COPYING for UrJTAG release. i'm not really comfortable putting my rubber stamp on this. would it be possible for you guys to make inquiries with Altera ? or perhaps contact the SFLC to see if they'll take a look ? > I have found at least two projects at opensource repositories, claiming > BSD or GPL-* compatibility and containing somewhat ported Altera player > code, so I suppose that I am not the only one, who reads Altera licence as > being compatible with GPL(v2,v3). what projects are those exactly ? -mike |