On 2009-02-26 at 16:23:27 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The confusion comes from the upstream
Paint.NET licensing which is in
limbo.
On the one hand their license says pdn is under an MIT license but on the
other hand they have removed the link to the download source code archive
and posted a cryptic message on their forum entitled "The source code is not
available" and containing the following statement "Please don“t ask for it,
or ask about it. Thanks." (
http://paintdotnet.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275&p=23838...
).
Once this mess will be cleared up, it will be easier for mono paint to take
action in one direction or another. In the mean time I would simply suggest
we package the project in its current form and stick to upstream as progress
are made towards resolution.
My concern is that the "Paint.net" upstream source contains non-free
bits (the GPC bits). The mono paint fork may have the GPC bits or it may
not. It doesn't seem to, but Miguel doesn't remember when he forked. The
very involvement of Miguel in this mess makes me uncomfortable, but the
missing facts certainly don't help.
~spot