On Thu, 29 May 2014 15:54:09 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> 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?
OK, it's almost week now and I have no response from author of that
Just like you said, there's only inscription "BSD license" on PYPI
website, and in 'PKG-INFO' and 'setup.py' files. No 'readme.txt' or
'license.txt' is included. I can see now, that in fact it means that script
isn't published under any BSD license.
I guess, I'll try to do what Chris proposed. Forget about this
implementation and write python script from the scratch looking only at the
Thank you guys.
Best regards, Wiktor Matuszewski