<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Unintentionally hit 'Reply' instead of 'Reply-all'. Correcting that
here.<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: Licensing on early PolicyKit code</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 13 Jul 2015 07:31:36 -0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Alan Perry <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alanp@snowmoose.com"><alanp@snowmoose.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Organization:
</th>
<td>Snowmoose Software/British History Podcast</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Richard Hughes <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hughsient@gmail.com"><hughsient@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>On 7/13/15 7:11 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 13 July 2015 at 14:59, Alan Perry <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alanp@snowmoose.com"><alanp@snowmoose.com></a> 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 be followed.
> I think it should be pretty clear by now, using the COPYING file or
> the header section in any released version of PolicyKit should be more
> than sufficient to conclude that the source isn't AFL.
Has this thread gotten so long that I need to go back and reference
stuff mentioned at the beginning?
As I mentioned, the code appears to be from PolicyKit before version
0.3. Miloslav confirmed that back then:
> The PolicyKit command-line tools are licensed to you under the GNU
> General Public License version 2.
>
> libpolkit is licensed to you under your choice of the Academic Free
> License version 2.1, or the GNU General Public License version 2.
I am talking about libpolkit.h, part of libpolkit, which has AFL as an
option.
Let me again quote the header section of the file in question:
> * 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 the License, or
> * (at your option) any later version.
> *
> * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> * GNU General Public License for more details.
> *
> * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
> * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
> 02110-1301 USA
Please explain to me how it is "pretty clear" that the source isn't AFL.
alan
</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>