Wiktor <look@signature.invalid> writes: > On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 03:37:56 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Wiktor <look@signature.invalid> 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 >>> original JavaScript version. :-/ >> >> 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 [1] ? [1]: https://github.com/abbot/pwdhash/issues/new 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. -- akira -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
