Re: [Tracker] [PATCH] libtracker-gtk (Gtk widgets for tracker)
- From: "Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen" <mikkel kamstrup gmail com>
- To: "Michael Biebl" <mbiebl gmail com>
- Cc: John Stowers <john stowers gmail com>, njpatel gmail com, Tracker List <tracker-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [Tracker] [PATCH] libtracker-gtk (Gtk widgets for tracker)
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:43:39 +0100
2007/3/1, Michael Biebl <mbiebl gmail com
2007/3/1, John Stowers <john stowers gmail com>:
> > I polished src/libtracker-gtk a bit (mostly to use the same
> > indentation style as the current tracker source code) and attached an
> > updated patch libtracker-gtk-2.patch.
> > I also updated t-s-t to optinally  use libtracker-gtk. It actually
> > compiles and runs now.
> Awesome. Thanks a lot
> > Jamie, John: do you think this patch can be merged in this state?
> > This way, john and njpatel could work against the tracker svn which
> > would make it easier to keep everything in sync.
> I tested your modified patch and everything works fine. I tidied up the
> package config file to make 3rd party applications compile successfully
> against libtracker-gtk
> The minor chage was in the Requires line (libtracker is installed as tracker
> not tracker-client and its gtk+-
2.0 not gtk-2.0). To slightly more correct
> line is
> Requires: tracker gtk+-2.0 glib-2.0
> This might be my setup or some more autotools business with the library.
> +1 that this patch is now ready to go in
The remaining issue seems to be src/libtracker-gtk/keywork-entry.[ch].
It's original license (as copied from epiphany) is GPL, but we agreed
that we want libtracker-gtk to be LGPL v2 or later. Could these two
files be rewritten so we don't have any traces of epiphany code in
there? Just copying GPL code and releasing it unter LGPL is not ok
IIRC, but then again IANAL.
You are right, that is not legal (unless you wrote the code yourself). I've had success with asking the original authors for re-licensed bits and pieces in the past, so if if there's only one or two contributors it should be a manageable task to ask for permissions.
] [Thread Prev