On 2009-02-26 at 13:21:01 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tom, > > I looked for this in the source tree but could not identify the offending > GPC code. What I suspect is that the license we are looking at ( > http://www.getpaint.net/license.html) is for the current version (3.36) of > Paint.NET which _may_ indeed include GPC while the mono paint tree that we > are building (http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/) was last synched from > upstream over one year ago and is currently stuck on 3.00; mono paint is > currently unable to resync because the code does not seem to be available > from upstream Paint.NET anymore making mono paint look more like a fork of > Paint.NET than a port to mono, see message below from the project lead. Hmm. Does mono-paint have the same license text inside of it? If it could be shown that mono paint forked from Paint.NET before the GPC code was merged, then this would be a non issue, but if the license text in mono paint has the GPC licensing in it, it is safe to assume that happened pre fork. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
