Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Discussion as to whether community based external plugins could/should be in the official source-tree

[David Mohammed <davidmohammed gmail com>]

yep - licensing is very important and if the current license files dont already have the exception statement, I'm happy to add them to my small projects.

But I dont really want to focus just on licensing - its more of the principal - subject to acceptable licensing, would an official community section in the source-tree would be agreeable to the key-parties involved with week-to-week maintenance and development?  What are the implications? etc etc.

On 1 November 2013 23:28, Lachlan <lachlan 00 gmail com> wrote:

Fileorganizer was creative commons when I took over. I'm not sure about it's gpl compatibility.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I would relicense future code to gpl v3 if required since all my personal projects are gpl anyway. I'm just not familiar about the implications of such a change.

On 02/11/2013 9:10 am, "Bastien Nocera" <hadess hadess net> wrote:

On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 21:51 +0000, David Mohammed wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>   There are a number of GPL 2 & 3 based plugins that have been
> converted to python3 and thus can & do run in the latest version of RB
> (below).

I hope they're GPLv2 and v3 with exception. Otherwise they're not
license compatible.

Cheers

_______________________________________________
rhythmbox-devel mailing list
rhythmbox-devel gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel