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...@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" <had...@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 >> >
_______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list rhythmbox-devel@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
