From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-04-10 17:06:49
|
On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 18:28 +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote: > On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:52:36 +0200, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 11:10 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote: > >> On 2010-04-10 05:56, M Rawash wrote: > >> > let's not forget the LGPL is itself copyrighted... > >> > >> Well, that's not *your* problem, that's something between FSF and > >> Tuomo. It probably doesn't make the license invalid. > >> > > > > so, what do you reckon we should do? > > > > > > i suggest we find the latest ion3 release that didn't include Tuomo's > > license and build on it from there (implementing all the later changes > > with our own code and license it under GPL); but whatever we do, i'm not > > in favour of keeping Tuomo's license (it's what drove people away in the > > first place). > > > > regards, > > M Rawash > > Patch descriptions of the post license changes: (40kB attachment limit?!) > http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/post-license-changes.txt yah, i already ran a diff on an older version of ion (could we use darcs to revert to a more precise snapshot?), seems like a lot of work, but i think it's worth it if we want this fork to be truly free... M Rawash PS: about the 40kB attachment limit, i believe it's sourceforge's policy, nothing in the admin interface says anything about a size limit. well, i guess we could move to http://savannah.nongnu.org/ (once we have a freeier license, that is) like Olof Johansson suggested; does anyone know what kind SCMs they support? |