Activity for Kyle Fazzari
-
Kyle Fazzari posted a comment on discussion Help
Seems reasonable on the surface, I'll have a deeper poke about soon. Looks like you decided to go with the LGPL instead of MIT?
-
Yes indeed!
-
I'll look into it once I'm able. When are you planning on rolling a new GetPot release with the license changes?
-
I'm happy to help, although it looks like you're already building a deb. What issues have you run into?
-
As far as the issues that started this discussion, your modifications look great, thank you! Note that several examples are still licensed under the LGPL, but there's really no issue with that. Just wanted to make sure you were aware given the move to MIT.
-
Hey there Frank, just wanted to check on this one. Any progress? Can I help?
-
Thanks Frank, I appreciate that! If it helps, here's my suggested patch (applied to v1.1.18), updating the header as well to conform with https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html: diff -ru getpot-c++-backup/examples/nominus_followers.cpp getpot-c++/examples/nominus_followers.cpp --- getpot-c++-backup/examples/nominus_followers.cpp 2017-10-26 12:54:40.233756391 -0700 +++ getpot-c++/examples/nominus_followers.cpp 2017-10-26 13:12:43.760490217 -0700 @@ -3,24 +3,19 @@ // // (C) 2006 Frank R. Schaefer...
-
Thanks Frank, I appreciate that! If it helps, here's my suggested patch (applied to v1.1.18): diff -ru getpot-c++-backup/examples/nominus_followers.cpp getpot-c++/examples/nominus_followers.cpp --- getpot-c++-backup/examples/nominus_followers.cpp 2017-10-26 12:54:40.233756391 -0700 +++ getpot-c++/examples/nominus_followers.cpp 2017-10-26 13:12:43.760490217 -0700 @@ -3,24 +3,19 @@ // // (C) 2006 Frank R. Schaefer // -// NOTE: The LPGL License for this library is only valid in case that -// it is not...
-
My humble apologies for the delay, Frank, I didn't realize that SF didn't subscribe you to your own posts! I am, now. I appreciate the waiver, however, there are still a few issues. While I might be able to convince the NEW queue reviewers that "this thread over here means this is okay" (that queue is not small, I don't want to go through it more than necessary), I essentially have to maintain a getpot fork just for license headers, which isn't ideal. The waiver is ambiguous. Does it only apply to...
-
My humble apologies for the delay, Frank, I didn't realize that SF didn't subscribe you to your own posts! I am, now. I appreciate the waiver, however, there are still a few issues. While I might be able to convince the NEW queue reviewers that "this thread over here means this is okay," I essentially have to maintain a getpot fork just for license headers, which isn't ideal. That queue is not small, I don't want to go through it more than necessary. The waiver is ambiguous. Does it only apply to...
-
My humble apologies for the delay, Frank, I didn't realize that SF didn't subscribe you to your own posts! I am, now. I appreciate the waiver, however, there are still a few issues. While I might be able to convince the NEW queue reviewers that "this thread over here means this is okay," I essentially have to maintain a getpot fork just for license headers, which isn't ideal. The waiver is ambiguous. Does it only apply to Debian? What about Debian derivatives? What about Fedora? These difficulties...
-
My humble apologies for the delay, Frank, I didn't realize that SF didn't subscribe you to your own posts! I am, now. I appreciate the waiver, however, there are a few issues. While I might be able to convince the NEW queue reviewers that "this thread over here means this is okay," I essentially have to maintain a getpot fork just for license headers, which isn't ideal. The waiver is ambiguous. Does it only apply to Debian? What about Debian derivatives? What about Fedora? These difficulties would...
-
My humble apologies for the delay, Frank, I didn't realize that SF didn't subscribe you to your own posts! I am, now. I appreciate the waiver, however, there are a few issues. While I might be able to convince the NEW queue reviewers that "this thread over here means this is okay," I essentially have to maintain a getpot fork just for license headers, which isn't ideal. The waiver is ambiguous. Does it only apply to Debian? What about Debian derivatives? What about Fedora? These difficulties would...
-
My humble apologies for the delay, Frank, I didn't realize that SF didn't subscribe you to your own posts! I am, now. I appreciate the waiver, however, there are a few issues. While I might be able to convince the NEW queue reviewers that "this thread over here means this is okay," I essentially have to maintain a getpot fork just for license headers, which isn't ideal. The waiver is ambiguous. Does it only apply to Debian? What about Debian derivatives? What about Fedora? These difficulties would...
-
I was hoping to get GetPot into Debian, but its "no military" text violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Would you consider removing that text to allow for wider distribution and usage?
1
