From sochotnicky at redhat.com  Wed Aug  4 14:38:58 2010
From: sochotnicky at redhat.com (Stanislav Ochotnicky)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:38:58 +0200
Subject: [icalendar-dev] Licensing confusion?
Message-ID: <1280925047-sup-1053@dhcp-30-74.brq.redhat.com>

Hi,

I am trying to package icalendar for Fedora Linux, but as I was going
through the code I encountered somewhat confusing Licensing terms.

LICENSE.txt file is LGPLv2.1

setup.py says package GPLv2.1

parser.py "License: GPL (Just contact med if and why you would like it
changed"

doctest.py - public domain 

test.py - GPLv2+


Last two files are not installed, they are just used to test the package
so they do not affect license of resulting package, but there is still
problem with LGPLv2.1 vs GPLv2.1. What were the intended licensing
terms?

Thanks for the info,

-- 
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com>
Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 71A1677C
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://codespeak.net/pipermail/icalendar-dev/attachments/20100804/363e6449/attachment.pgp 

From sappj at ieee.org  Wed Aug  4 14:14:34 2010
From: sappj at ieee.org (Joe Sapp)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:14:34 -0400
Subject: [icalendar-dev] doctests for Python 2.7
Message-ID: <4C5959AA.9040506@ieee.org>

doctests fail with Python 2.7.  The attached patch fixes it, though the
documentation is not as clear as it used to be IMHO.

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 07_all_vGeo.from_ical-test-fix.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 630 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://codespeak.net/pipermail/icalendar-dev/attachments/20100804/c0c42529/attachment.bin 

From maxm at mxm.dk  Wed Aug  4 16:00:03 2010
From: maxm at mxm.dk (Max M)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:00:03 +0200
Subject: [icalendar-dev] Licensing confusion?
In-Reply-To: <1280925047-sup-1053@dhcp-30-74.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1280925047-sup-1053@dhcp-30-74.brq.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4C597263.1000909@mxm.dk>

Stanislav Ochotnicky skrev:
 > Hi,
 >
 > I am trying to package icalendar for Fedora Linux, but as I was going
 > through the code I encountered somewhat confusing Licensing terms.
 >
 > LICENSE.txt file is LGPLv2.1
 >
 > setup.py says package GPLv2.1
 >
 > parser.py "License: GPL (Just contact med if and why you would like it
 > changed"
 >
 > doctest.py - public domain
 >
 > test.py - GPLv2+
 >
 >
 > Last two files are not installed, they are just used to test the package
 > so they do not affect license of resulting package, but there is still
 > problem with LGPLv2.1 vs GPLv2.1. What were the intended licensing
 > terms?


It was initially just the at any time current GPL that was in mind. But 
frankly it was never very important to me.

Other people have made minor fixes and changes to the code, and there 
has been talk about license, but no one found it very important.

I still do not think it is and I am not going to go after anybody 
however they use it.


-- 

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science

Phone:  +45 66 11 84 94
Mobile: +45 29 93 42 96