Re: Discussion as to whether community based external plugins could/should be in the official source-tree

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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
>>
>

_______________________________________________
rhythmbox-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel