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

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
"or later" clause.

Jeff

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 16:19 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> 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!
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolution-hackers mailing list
> Evolution-hackers gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers