The absence of the LICENSE.txt file for the repository makes the license for package builders a little unclear - I've submitted a PR[0] for this, but wanted to open up an Issue on the license subject anyway.
I took the presence of the GPLv2 License text[1] in the source code headers to mean that the entire repository should be licensed in that manner - but I confess this may have been inadequate and other contributors may have different licenses for their contributions (e.g. package build scripts, etc.).
Oricutron has always been GPLv2, and the git repo is marked as such. If anyone submitted code, they should reasonably have been expected to know it was a GPLv2 project, so I don't think there's any concern.
Hi,
The absence of the LICENSE.txt file for the repository makes the license for package builders a little unclear - I've submitted a PR[0] for this, but wanted to open up an Issue on the license subject anyway.
I took the presence of the GPLv2 License text[1] in the source code headers to mean that the entire repository should be licensed in that manner - but I confess this may have been inadequate and other contributors may have different licenses for their contributions (e.g. package build scripts, etc.).
[0] - https://github.com/pete-gordon/oricutron/pull/197 [1] - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html