On 2014-02-13 10:18, Florian Bruhin wrote:
* Daniel Landau <daniel.landau@iki.fi> [2014-02-13 10:00:52 -0600]:
On 2014-02-13 04:27, Florian Bruhin wrote:
I'm the current maintainer of the pebble-sdk-beta[1] package.
I don't have comments on your actual questions but I do have one of my own:
[2] claims a license of GPLv3 and [1] claims MIT. I can't find license information in the SDK tar balls but I do find binaries without corresponding sources. What's the deal here?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pebble-sdk-beta/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pebble-sdk/
* Taylor Lookabaugh <jesus.christ.i.love@gmail.com> [2014-02-13 08:10:02 -0800]:
I went as far as looking in the github repository and I'm guessing the sdk-beta assumed MIT based on this[1] where it says all examples are released under MIT License.
Yeah, this is just a best guess based on the examples license, and tools/LICENSE which also says MIT.
As far as I can tell, e.g., the PebbleKit-Android directory has source code but no license and the Pebble directory (for developing watch faces?) contains a compiled libpebble.a archive with no source code and no license. Daniel