swfupload is likely to be licensed under the MIT license:<div><br></div><div><a href="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</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/source/browse/swfupload/tags/swfupload_v2.2.0_beta1/core/swfupload+license.txt?r=786"></a>This is more liberal than Artistic and LGPL which mojomojo is dual licensed under, so I don't think we have a problem?<br clear="all">
***<br>Marcus Ramberg<br>Nordaaker Consulting AS (995 701 766)<br>+47 934 17 508<br><a href="http://nordaaker.com" target="_blank">http://nordaaker.com</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Simon McVittie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:smcv@debian.org">smcv@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 at 21:01:34 -0300, David Bremner wrote:<br>
> I have the impression they are related to<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/</a><br>
><br>
> but I would like to confirm.<br>
<br>
For what it's worth, if they're that swfupload, source code is available<br>
(although I don't know whether compilers in Debian can build it). I've<br>
filed <a href="http://bugs.debian.org/602253" target="_blank">http://bugs.debian.org/602253</a> asking for swfupload to be packaged,<br>
since this isn't the only package with a copy.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
S<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>