On 2009-02-26 at 16:23:27 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The confusion comes from the upstream Paint.NET licensing which is in limbo. > On the one hand their license says pdn is under an MIT license but on the > other hand they have removed the link to the download source code archive > and posted a cryptic message on their forum entitled "The source code is not > available" and containing the following statement "Please don´t ask for it, > or ask about it. Thanks." ( > http://paintdotnet.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275&p=238380&hilit=source#p238380 > ). > > Once this mess will be cleared up, it will be easier for mono paint to take > action in one direction or another. In the mean time I would simply suggest > we package the project in its current form and stick to upstream as progress > are made towards resolution. My concern is that the "Paint.net" upstream source contains non-free bits (the GPC bits). The mono paint fork may have the GPC bits or it may not. It doesn't seem to, but Miguel doesn't remember when he forked. The very involvement of Miguel in this mess makes me uncomfortable, but the missing facts certainly don't help. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
