On Friday 15 April 2005 23:44, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:43:56PM +0200, Craig Bradney wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2005 23:26, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:
On 4/15/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Not sure that's blowing them off, exactly. We don't really have the rights to make any license arrangements BUT the GPL.
Actually we have, but only if we achieve the agreement of _all_ authors of the code, which is not realistic.
Well, by "we", I meant the current Inkscape developers, not all authors. I would be surprised if e.g. Lauris would be very cooperative.
Not that I would blame him in this case; if COMPUTERBILD want to distribute Inkscape, the GPL is good enough.
Probably this is new territory for them though; they're likely used to negotiating special licensing arrangements for packaging proprietary demos on their CDs, and their procedures are probably oriented towards that. Here, they may require a bit of hand-holding from us.
If I'm in the shops tomorrow I'll have a look to see if its there. Should be. Ill see whats on this months CD and if its an OSS project, maybe you can ask those devs for what they did.
Great, thanks. Also it would be useful to know if any special steps were taken for packaging it - i.e., if it includes the GPL, a source tarball, linux packages, or whatnot. We could request the same be done for Inkscape in that case.
Found it. It looks basically like a Windows mag, with the CD containing either free (and therefore old) versions of various software or free updates or versions for free doze software, plus service packs etc. Purely Windows from the quick look I had. No OSS mentioned on the CD that I could see, but I didnt buy it to go looking for GPL anywhere.
Craig