|
From: <mi...@st...> - 2002-08-21 20:47:54
|
David Leonard wrote: > > as for the LICENCE.. i dunno. > [..] > The LICENSE (sic) file is a bit of a dubious licence .. $ diff LICENSE Modules/LICENCE 2c2 < The python-ldap package is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. --- > The _ldap C module is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. 15c15 < $Id: LICENSE,v 1.1 2002/07/25 21:43:25 stroeder Exp $ --- > $Id: LICENCE,v 1.1 2001/06/17 13:30:23 leonard Exp $ ;-) > The LICENSE file also appears to conflict with the explicit licencing in > some files (gpl). GPL? $ egrep -i "(gnu|gpl)" Lib/*.py Lib/ldap/*.py $ > Perhaps it could be changed to be more of a 'default' > situation.. ie "Unless otherwise specified source files in this distribution > are licenced for any use subject to acceptance of the following disclaimer, > and may be otherwise treated as works in the public domain"... I want to have exactly one file containing the license (or licence?) for all files distributed in the package. > However, I do NOT want to see anyone FORCED into releasing their work or > fixes into the public domain (although it would be nice). Agreed. > But any contribution with a licence more restrictive than the GPL should not > be allowed to be committed into the repository! that would be bad. Agreed. No doubt about that. > Why? Because any packaging or distribution of python-ldap would have to > comply with the strongest of licences. (GPL at the moment). No GPL anymore. Please bring your working tree in sync. I had the GPL in the header of some modules copied over from web2ldap. I just forgot to change that. Fixed that some time ago. > But, adding more lines of text to all the files > (as suggested) is a bit of overkill, in my opinion. Agreed. > another track is to ask all authors for permission to vary their licences to > a common licence... like GPL or BSD... but you couldnt guarantee that > everyone would agree! (or even be contactable!) I'd like to remove unmaintained and unpackaged code from the CVS anyway. This mainly affects Fog's Lib/perldap.py and ldaplib/*. The set of active authors boils down to Hans, David and me. The rest contributed patches and I'm pretty sure that the patched code is maintained in the python-ldap mainstream => for published fixes I would just assume the overall license we can agree on. Personally I have no problem to choose a very liberal one which allows commercial use. Ciao, Michael. |