Vovochka wrote:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
PunBB breaks 5.a because all FluxBB copyrights are removed.Smartys wrote:No matter what, if code based on FluxBB is used, then FluxBB's copyright statement has to be kept intact.
Yup. This will be done.
Sorry for oversight.
Anatoly wrote:Vovochka wrote:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
PunBB breaks 5.a because all FluxBB copyrights are removed.Smartys wrote:No matter what, if code based on FluxBB is used, then FluxBB's copyright statement has to be kept intact.
Yup. This will be done.
When? The RC download still has the copyright violation, judging by the quick look I just had.
Anatoly wrote:MattF wrote:When? The RC download still has the copyright violation, judging by the quick look I just had.
It doesn't seem to us a good idea to modify already openly released version.
To be honest, it doesn't matter a monkeys what your companies opinion is on this matter. You are directly violating a copyright. That is not a matter you address at your convenience or when you see fit. Plus, there is no valid technical reason not to update that source with a valid copyright. It would neither directly nor indirectly affect anything.
Totaly agree with you there MattF.
Frankly it is disgusting that the copyright violation was not corrected instantly. Suggests to me it was done on purpose in the first place, otherwise why not rectify it immediately.
Got to love the GPL though haven`t you, suck what you want out of it (or should I say the developers, who work for free), break the terms, suffer no consequences and reap the benefits.
You could at least comply with the license. Discrasefull.
EDIT:
Moreover I doubt Rickard would of let this in the first place, let alone go unamended.