| 1 |
25.12.2005, 3:51:15, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo, |
| 5 |
> that's not the issue. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however |
| 8 |
> horrid the license is). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of the codec, or |
| 11 |
> someone manages to track down the original author and gets the code |
| 12 |
> converted to a different license. Latter still is tricky, since any |
| 13 |
> contributions to the project, you would need all authors to sign off |
| 14 |
> on the new license- this is assuming the project doesn't do |
| 15 |
> centralized copyright, and assuming people have actually contributed |
| 16 |
> to it beyond original author. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Not exactly what I meant. There's actually no (clear) license, the original |
| 20 |
one would apply to the original code, not to the patches submitted after |
| 21 |
it's been "re-licensed" under LGPL. Since upstream is dead, we can't ship |
| 22 |
the original code (leaving the question why we should do it at all aside), |
| 23 |
also we can't exactly find all the people who contributed the patches under |
| 24 |
LGPL, and there's no way to contribute the code back to upstream as the |
| 25 |
original license requires. Such code is a real "bargain" to commit :P |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rewrite from scratch, that's what left here. So much you get if you start |
| 28 |
with a bullshit license originally and then go MIA. :/ |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Jakub Moc |
| 34 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 35 |
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 36 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives