My plugins (comprising three of the list David compiled) are GPLv3. I'm not sure of the technical implications of including these in the distribution, but it would be extremely convenient from both a user and plugin maintenance perspective. I suppose the question is whether the change would shift an equivalent (or larger) responsibility on to the Rhythmbox developers and whether they'd be happy to accept it. On Nov 1, 2013 11:29 p.m., "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 > >
_______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list rhythmbox-devel@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
