License Confirmation and MD5 Checksums #2

Activity

1. mystatistic commented on Sep 22, 2017

   

   mystatistic

   on Sep 22, 2017

   More actions

   Despite the license file being MIT, the main.c file clearly has an LGPL header. Hence the actual license needs to be confirmed and corrected. This is much more serious than just interpreting what the MIT license allows.

   👍React with 👍2Reacted by Tripp Kinetics and Nordsjoe
2. jrepp commented on May 3, 2018

   

   jrepp

   on May 3, 2018

   More actions

   I'm also interested in having the license clarified by the author.

   👍React with 👍3Reacted by daifuming, Tripp Kinetics and Nordsjoe
3. pleappleappleap commented on Feb 10, 2021

   

   pleappleappleap

   on Feb 10, 2021

   More actions

   I just want to confirm that I am understanding this correctly, since this project is under the MIT license it should be ok to redistribute the binaries under another open source project, correct?

   We would of course provide a README along side it that would give attribution and the fact that it is being provided by the MIT license.

   In this light, I was curious if you would be willing to publish MD5 hashes of the binaries so users could be assured.

   Thanks for providing this software!

   Might I suggest that, in the future, you please report this kind of thing as two separate issues, as they are not related? One for the license, and one for the MD5 request.
4. Nordsjoe commented on Nov 22, 2021

   

   Nordsjoe

   on Nov 22, 2021

   More actions

   Making a desperate attempt to awaken this issue from the dead.

   +1 to wanting clarification about the license.