swfupload is likely to be licensed under the MIT license: http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/source/browse/swfupload/tags/swfupload_v2.2.0_beta1/core/swfupload+license.txt?r=786
<http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/source/browse/swfupload/tags/swfupload_v2.2.0_beta1/core/swfupload+license.txt?r=786>This is more liberal than Artistic and LGPL which mojomojo is dual licensed under, so I don't think we have a problem? *** Marcus Ramberg Nordaaker Consulting AS (995 701 766) +47 934 17 508 http://nordaaker.com On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 at 21:01:34 -0300, David Bremner wrote: > > I have the impression they are related to > > > > http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/ > > > > but I would like to confirm. > > For what it's worth, if they're that swfupload, source code is available > (although I don't know whether compilers in Debian can build it). I've > filed http://bugs.debian.org/602253 asking for swfupload to be packaged, > since this isn't the only package with a copy. > > S >
