From: Nedko A. <ne...@ar...> - 2010-08-26 21:37:56
|
Hi, I've imported into git the last ion3 tarball that was digitally signed by Tuomo Valkonen and had unmodified license. The signature and original tarball are in the first commit, the second commit contains the sources only. I personally think it is not worth to try to grow notion in a tainted soil. Even if FSF replies that it is safe to use the latest codebase after name change, it has yet to be proven in a court. And even then the law depends on country. I do understand that there are people who think otherwise. So I propose to let the evolution do its job by allowing both codebases to exist. If newer source snapshots are commited over the commit 9d93ba723a3acf0a14be347a75dada8df972e97a, and are are dual licensed, then they could even be backported to the pristine land. In this codebase, the ion name can be kept because it is pure LGPL but still I think it is a good idea to change the name. I like the notion name and probably it could be possible to have two codebases associated with same project. The cgit view of the repo: http://nedko.arnaudov.name/git/cgit.cgi/ion/ The clone url: http://nedko.arnaudov.name/git/ion.git -- Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0> |