Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

[Srinivasa Ragavan <sragavan novell com>]

Philip,

This is observed in Evolution also. The OpenChange hackers brought to
our notice and I'm with the Novell legal team to get this resolved
altogether. But that process seems like taking time and I have to wait a
but before doing anything.

-Srini.

On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:08 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> The README.COPYRIGHT of EDS's Camel states:
> 
>  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or 
>  * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as 
>  * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
>  * License, or (at your option) any later version.
> 
> Whereas a lot of files (like, camel-address.c, to pick one example) state:
> 
>  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>  * modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU Lesser General Public
>  * License as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> 
> It looks like EDS's COPYING file also uses the "any later version"
> version of the GPL v2.
> 
> I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to have mixed licenses for one
> piece of code (being Camel). Would it be possible to change the license
> of all of EDS's files to be the same?
> 
> Note that Novell/Ximian seems to be the copyright holder of all files,
> that of course means this organisation makes this decision.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
>