[sork] Change license of Horde sork modules

[Jan Schneider]

Zitat von Gregory Colpart <reg at evolix.fr>:

> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:03:06PM +0200, Jan Schneider wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Then changing license of Forward sork modules to BSD-like
>> >>>license (in LICENSE file and headers of PHP files) seems okay.
>> >>>I can make a trivial patch if you want.
>> >>
>> >>Yes, please. It is trivial, but as long as you're willing to save me
>> >>some time I'm going to say yes. :)
>> >
>> >Patch on attachment.
>>
>> Committed, thanks.
>
> debian-legal expert thinks that "no answer == consent" method
> for changing license is not good[*]. Then here is a patch to
> return to ASL for Marc Jauvin and Mike Cochran drivers.
>
> [*] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/07/msg00119.html

Alright, let's try this: I think we've took a wrong approach to this  
problem. I'm pretty sure that no license was actively choose for this  
and probably the other modules either.
The LICENSE file said ASL, the page header template (that appears in  
all rendered pages) said GPL, and the library files said BSD.

I fixed the template back in 2004, but obviously not in all branches,  
at least the GPL is appearing again in the current code.
I changed the BSD lines to ASL in February when I noticed this  
inconsistency because I assumed that the LICENSE files was chosen more  
intentionally than the library comments, simply because people usually  
don't have an idea what a certain license implies, but can read a  
license fine. Eric can maybe say more whether he has chosen a certain  
license for the Sork moudules by intention, or rather because by  
copy'n'paste.

Anyway, let's assume my assumption in February was wrong, and not ASL  
was the intended license but BSD, which ich as much possible as the  
other was round. We would be all set then, right?

Jan.

-- 
Do you need professional PHP or Horde consulting?
http://horde.org/consulting/