License Confirmation and MD5 Checksums

[if-kenn]

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!

[mystatistic]

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.

[jrepp]

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

[pleappleappleap]

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.

[Nordsjoe]

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

+1 to wanting clarification about the license.