Re: [Fwd: [gnome.org #1107] gnome account]

["Peter Parente" <parente gmail com>]

Behdad Esfahbod approved the import of the LSR project into
cvs.gnome.org with our explicit statement that it is currently
licensed under the Common Public License. There was no indication
expressed to us at the time that using the CPL would be a problem. Is
this now an issue?

If so, please advise ASAP since LSR is already in CVS, already has a
first release at http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/lsr/0.2/, and
has public pages at http://live.gnome.org/LSR.

Pete

On 5/30/06, George Kraft <gk4 austin ibm com> wrote:
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Ross Golder via RT <accounts gnome org>
> Reply-To: accounts gnome org
> To: gk4 austin ibm com
> Subject: [gnome.org #1107] gnome account
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 04:35:32 -0400 (EDT)
> Let's not even risk putting GNOME in a legal 'situation'. or get our
> sysadmins sucked into legal dilemmas we're not qualified or inclined to
> consider! Let's just stick to the rules here for now - no exceptions
> reqd. IMHO, IBM must publicly release a tarball, which expressly states
> it's license as (L)GPL before it can be accepted by GNOME.
>
> It should be Peter's responsibility as a GNOME CVS account holder not to
> import any code before it meets the requirements. In the unlikely event
> that Peter is found to have broken this rule at any point, his account
> will be suspended and any modules he maintains removed from public CVS.
> If in any doubt, Peter should probably bring it up for open discussion
> on gnome-infrastructure gnome org or something first.
>
> That seems to be the path of least resistance to me. Any better
> suggestions welcome, but it's Kurt's call at the end of the day ;^P
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent via GNOME.org Request Tracker.
> --
>
> George (gk4)