On 09/07/15 15:45, Alan Perry wrote:
> I cited an ambiguously written licensing comment from an early PolicyKit
> header file and asked what was the intended licensing for the file. What
> am I trying to achieve? To determine what licensing applies to that
> particular header file.
Nothing that an
Unintentionally hit 'Reply' instead of 'Reply-all'. Correcting that here.
Forwarded Message ----
Subject: Re: Licensing on early PolicyKit code
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 07:31:36 -0700
From: Alan Perry
Organization: Snowmoose Software/Britis
On 13 July 2015 at 14:59, Alan Perry wrote:
> Shouldn't anyone using open source code know what license applies in order
> to be sure that they are in compliance with that license? As Simon implied,
> there are differences between AFL 2.1 and GPLv2 and it would be good to know
> which one should b
On 7/13/15 6:49 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 13 July 2015 at 14:33, Alan Perry wrote:
My problem is that I would like to get an explicit statement from the
copyright holder (David Z.) clarifying the licensing
Why?
Shouldn't anyone using open source code know what license applies in
order to
On 13 July 2015 at 14:33, Alan Perry wrote:
> My problem is that I would like to get an explicit statement from the
> copyright holder (David Z.) clarifying the licensing
Why?
Richard
___
polkit-devel mailing list
polkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
htt
On 7/13/15 3:31 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 08/07/15 16:56, Alan Perry wrote:
* Licensed under the Academic Free License version 2.1
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Softwar
On 08/07/15 16:56, Alan Perry wrote:
> * Licensed under the Academic Free License version 2.1
> *
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of t
On 7/9/15 1:06 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 8 July 2015 at 22:34, Alan Perry wrote:
Not exactly an ideal situation, is it? As I said, I asked the author and he
referred me here.
David now works for Google, and is probably hugely busy. It might be
that he's not allowed to work more on this pr
On 8 July 2015 at 22:34, Alan Perry wrote:
> Not exactly an ideal situation, is it? As I said, I asked the author and he
> referred me here.
David now works for Google, and is probably hugely busy. It might be
that he's not allowed to work more on this project or comment on
historical legal or
On 7/8/15 2:27 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
On 7/8/15 1:06 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Looking at PolicyKit 0.3, it does include some files using that license,
but it also says
The PolicyKit command-line tools are licensed to you under the GNU
General Public License version 2.
This license
Hello,
> On 7/8/15 1:06 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Looking at PolicyKit 0.3, it does include some files using that license,
> > but it also says
> >> The PolicyKit command-line tools are licensed to you under the GNU
> >> General Public License version 2.
>
> This license comment is from a head
On 7/8/15 1:06 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On 7/8/15 12:23 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to confirm the licensing that applies to some early
PolicyKit code and David Zeuthen referred me here.
The licensing comment reads:
* Licensed under the Academic Free License version 2.1
Whi
> On 7/8/15 12:23 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Hello,
> >> I am trying to confirm the licensing that applies to some early
> >> PolicyKit code and David Zeuthen referred me here.
> >>
> >> The licensing comment reads:
> >>
> >> * Licensed under the Academic Free License version 2.1
> > Which “some
On 7/8/15 12:23 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to confirm the licensing that applies to some early
PolicyKit code and David Zeuthen referred me here.
The licensing comment reads:
* Licensed under the Academic Free License version 2.1
Which “some code” is this exactly? The curren
Hello,
> I am trying to confirm the licensing that applies to some early
> PolicyKit code and David Zeuthen referred me here.
>
> The licensing comment reads:
>
> * Licensed under the Academic Free License version 2.1
Which “some code” is this exactly? The current git repo doesn’t contain the
w
Thanks.
So, for the dual licensing, is there an implied "OR" between the two
licensing clauses? IANAL, but I don't think AFL and GPL are compatible
enough for it to be an "AND".
alan
On 7/8/15 9:36 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
If it helps, HAL was originally AFL and GPL dual licenced, and I
su
If it helps, HAL was originally AFL and GPL dual licenced, and I suppose
the file header could have been copied from hal to polkit as it was the
same maintainer (David Z). I'm pretty sure PolicyKit was just supposed to
be GPLv2+.
Richard
On 8 July 2015 at 16:56, Alan Perry wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I
17 matches
Mail list logo
