On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you absolutely can't get in touch with him, the only option is to
> go back to the original protocol and manually reimplement it,
> completely ignoring this code. It's sad but true; some code dies
> because of a trivial thing like "Oops, I forgot to actually say that
> this is MIT-licensed".
The second part of that is that the code should actually *include* the
license text. Just writing "BSD license" somewhere on the website or
in package metadata is annoyingly common but somewhat questionable in
how a judge might interpret it. For instance, there at least four
different versions of the BSD license; which one did you mean?