Bug#591974: use of swfuploader in Mojo

[Marcus Ramberg]

swfupload is likely to be licensed under the MIT license:

http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/source/browse/swfupload/tags/swfupload_v2.2.0_beta1/core/swfupload+license.txt?r=786

<http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/source/browse/swfupload/tags/swfupload_v2.2.0_beta1/core/swfupload+license.txt?r=786>This
is more liberal than Artistic and LGPL which mojomojo is dual licensed
under, so I don't think we have a problem?
***
Marcus Ramberg
Nordaaker Consulting AS (995 701 766)
+47 934 17 508
http://nordaaker.com


On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Simon McVittie <smcv at debian.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 at 21:01:34 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> > I have the impression they are related to
> >
> >   http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/
> >
> > but I would like to confirm.
>
> For what it's worth, if they're that swfupload, source code is available
> (although I don't know whether compilers in Debian can build it). I've
> filed http://bugs.debian.org/602253 asking for swfupload to be packaged,
> since this isn't the only package with a copy.
>
>    S
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/attachments/20101103/f7c2c0fd/attachment.htm>