Wiktor <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 03:37:56 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Wiktor <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> Sadly, that may be your only safe option.
>> Let this be a lesson to all: If you want something to be free
>> software, make it very clear, because "it looks like he meant that to
>> be open source" just isn't enough :(
> Lesson taken. ;-)
> Interesting thing is, that for another 4 people, lack of license in this
> script wasn't problem to publish its modified version. I've just searched
> phrase "pwdhash" on GitHub, to simply check if someone else hadn't port
> this script to Python3 earlier, or maybe ported it (with proper license) to
> Python2 so I would have better start. And I've found practically the same
> script here: https://github.com/ali01/pwdhash.py, forked then 3 times.
> Of course I'm not going to act now "Oh, they could do that without
> consequences, so why should I bother?" - no, I'm going to do this right (as
> a good start in OS community) - but it feels awkward now. ;-)
Have you tried to open an issue about clarifying the license terms  ?
Or better yet, submit a pull request that specifies the license to the
standard you need?
I've dealt with the author in the past. I see no reason, he would refuse
to accept PR if license=BSD in setup.py is not enough.