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?

Signature
Andy Dent BSc MACS
OOFILE - Cross-Platform Database, Reports, Graphs, GUI in C++
PP2MFC - PowerPlant->MFC portability
http://www.oofile.com.au/
Steven Fisher - 24 Jan 2006 16:57 GMT
> 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.

Signature
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
Eric Albert - 24 Jan 2006 18:35 GMT
> Is anybody left with connections at Metrowerks who can get the license
> fixed on the Open Powerplant archive?
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> 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

Signature
Eric Albert ejalbert@cs.stanford.edu
http://outofcheese.org/
Sean McBride - 26 Jan 2006 01:04 GMT
> 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.