Fixing Open Powerplant License

[Andy Dent]

Is anybody left with connections at Metrowerks who can get the license
fixed on the Open Powerplant archive?

IANAL so I'm not sure if it is safe to take something that
1) has been created by current employees of the company

2) states on the home page
http://sourceforge.net/projects/open-powerplant/ "This framework has
been released to open source by Freescale"

3) has a link on that home page to the BSD License and says it is
released under that license
http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=187

but
4) still has the old restrictive license in the archive.

It could be argued that there was enough intent established by the
public discussions (over months) and the creation of this website to
make the included license text in the archive irrelevant.

Do others feel this is safe?

[Steven Fisher]

Post by Andy Dent
Do others feel this is safe?

Why not ask the sourceforge folks? I'm sure they've seen exactly this
situation played out many times before.

[Eric Albert]

Post by Andy Dent
Is anybody left with connections at Metrowerks who can get the license
fixed on the Open Powerplant archive?
IANAL so I'm not sure if it is safe to take something that
1) has been created by current employees of the company
2) states on the home page
http://sourceforge.net/projects/open-powerplant/ "This framework has
been released to open source by Freescale"
3) has a link on that home page to the BSD License and says it is
released under that license
http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=187
but
4) still has the old restrictive license in the archive.
It could be argued that there was enough intent established by the
public discussions (over months) and the creation of this website to
make the included license text in the archive irrelevant.
Do others feel this is safe?

I don't feel this is safe, and I've already mentioned it to various MW
folks. The response was that they're working on it.

-Eric

[Sean McBride]

Post by Andy Dent
It could be argued that there was enough intent established by the
public discussions (over months) and the creation of this website to
make the included license text in the archive irrelevant.

I agree. No doubt it just hasn't been gotten around to yet.