[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kwrite-devel
Subject:    [ATTN Dominik] cmake highlighter license question
From:       "Matthew Woehlke" <mwoehlke () tibco ! com>
Date:       2008-02-08 20:24:07
Message-ID: E4B46A50CCA52348A67B3506C79BB390017664C8 () NA-PA-VBE01 ! na ! tibco ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Ping? I'm trying kwrite-devel also in case my mail isn't getting through
directly for some reason...

Dominik: it looks like you have your own fingerprints on cmake.xml as
well as Alexander's initial version (and the couple updates I've already
done). I'd like to commit some changes, but currently there is not a
clear license, and part of the change I'm sitting on is to add an LGPL
banner. Is this OK with you?

I've already got an ACK from Alexander, so I'm just waiting on you...

-- 
Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Woehlke 
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 20:06
To: 'Alexander Neundorf'; 'dhdev@gmx.de'
Subject: RE: cmake highlighter license question

Heh, time to bring this up again... I've made some additional
modifications and I'd like to actually commit my updates now, so...

At rough estimate, 67 highlighters (in trunk) use LGPL (19 use GPL, 2
use Artistic, and 1 uses FDL; 17 have the tag blank and the remaining 54
don't use the 'license' tag and I am too lazy to open up each of those
to see if they have license banners).

As the main concerned copyright holders (besides me, of course), is it
OK with both of you if I check in the updates with an LGPLv2+ banner?

I think I personally prefer LGPL. Otherwise, if someone can send me an
appropriate not-LGPL banner, I'd be much easier to convince :-).

--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
KWrite-Devel mailing list
KWrite-Devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]