Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
As licensed -- It seems that no one can use this code at all. This is more
than a
regular defect. Can you fix the licensing so that this code can be used?
Original comment by tenor...@gmail.com
on 20 Apr 2010 at 5:35
Hello,
I am not the author, BUT i guess it should be the "BSD license". GPL looks like
the
old licence. Probably it just was not altered after the change to the new
license modell.
The old website (http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~francois/software/jahmm/)
shows
the following text:
"
Jahmm has a new home!
Jahmm is moving to a new home! Check out the new website:
http://jahmm.googlecode.com/
It's now available under the New BSD license!
Making Jahmm available as a Google Code project brings exciting new features
such as
a discussion group, a wiki, and a freely available source revision system. This
new
infrastructure should greatly ease the community feedback and allow Jahmm users
to
help each other.
All this is great news!
I plan to deprecate this site as soon as all the information available here
have been
copied to the new website.
"
===>> "It's now available under the New BSD license!" should solve this
problem?!
Original comment by vamos.be...@gmail.com
on 27 Apr 2010 at 9:21
Vamos, I think you are right in suggesting that the author indicated intent
that this
should be licensed under BSD. But I find GPL text in the header of some of the
.Java
files (and the README). There is a conflict between the files being licensed
under
GPL and the project being listed as BSD. If the author really intended this
work to
be licensed under BSD (as he indicates), then he needs to license his code to
indicate this. You and I (as observers) cannot apply the license we want onto
his
code. Only he (as license holder) can reconcile what he wants with what he
published.
Is he still interested in the success and usage of this code? or has he
abandoned
this? If the latter -- then all the more reason to be concerned about using
this
code. I encourage him to respond here so that people who wish to use his code
contribution can do so.
Gil
Original comment by tenor...@gmail.com
on 28 Apr 2010 at 7:22
[deleted comment]
but it is an official and clear statement from the author...
but of course it would be nice to hear from him :)
Original comment by vamos.be...@gmail.com
on 29 Apr 2010 at 8:12
The author has not responded to this thread, but it appears that text
referencing the GPL license is no longer in the project and that the
declaration of the BSD license is now consistent with the code.
The author has the right to license the code however he wants. But if there is
both BSD and GPL text in the code -- well, it's just confusing as to what the
real license is. I'm glad to see this clear up. Using the new BSD license
make it easier to use this code for more applications -- which is great. And I
thank the author for this. His acknowledgement on this issue thread would be
most welcome too.
Original comment by tenor...@gmail.com
on 26 Sep 2010 at 4:39
I confirm that the licensing scheme is indeed New BSD. It used to be licensed
under GPL; I have apparently forgot to replace the header in some files, sorry
about that.
Jean-Marc
Original comment by jm.francois
on 20 Mar 2011 at 12:09
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
deb.don...@gmail.com
on 8 Apr 2010 at 7:02