-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
License violation #43
Comments
Moreover triplesec violate original license but if you consider that MIT apply only to patch you should also acknowledge triplesec author and add this license to his patch work Copyright (c) 2013 Maxwell Krohn Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR |
Moreover ghash is tainted by this license: |
I propose this copyright file: Files: * Files: ghash.js Files: debian/* License: Expat License: BSD-3
License: BSD-2
License: GPL-2 |
PRs accepted... |
@calvinmetcalf from reading what @bastien-roucaries has said, and briefly looking at some of the links, it appears the summary of changes are as shown below? @bastien-roucaries what do you mean by Files: *
Files: ghash.js
|
@bastien-roucaries #59 implies that this issue can be closed. However, the license of the project isn't fully clear to me. Is it dual-licensed, or are different parts licensed differently? in other words, how can the license of this project be accurately represented with a SPDX specifier? If it can not be, which parts would I need to extract to a different package so that both packages had an accurate SPDX identifier? |
I think parts of this package written by @calvinmetcalf license as MIT - but otherwise different parts would be derivatives which are licensed differently and hopefully were covered by #59. |
oof, ok thanks, that makes things difficult. |
Maybe you could copy the LICENSE headers from |
The ideal destination is that an individual package has a single license that covers it in its entirety. So, I'd probably want to extract out either the MIT parts, or the non-MIT parts, into a new package, so that each one has a single SPDX identifier. |
you said that your package derive from:
ttps://code.google.com/p/crypto-js/
This is the license that is more restrictive than our. You should therefore use the following license and acknowledge original license:
Export to GitHub
crypto-js - License.wiki
(c) 2009-2013 by Jeff Mott. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS," AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: