From f668f755637c94054b01e9ef472ad2b7d416b660 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bill Nottingham Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:46:43 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Update python-ldap license text. Change blurb to match what Fedora/RH ship for this package. --- docs/licenses/python-ldap.txt | 26 ++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/licenses/python-ldap.txt b/docs/licenses/python-ldap.txt index 54202bc170..0aa20b4ea0 100644 --- a/docs/licenses/python-ldap.txt +++ b/docs/licenses/python-ldap.txt @@ -1,19 +1,13 @@ -Mentioning a Python style license was my fault for two reasons: +The python-ldap package is distributed under Python-style license. -1. It is an obstacle to incorporate python-ldap into Python's standard lib. +Standard disclaimer: + This software is made available by the author(s) to the public for free + and "as is". All users of this free software are solely and entirely + responsible for their own choice and use of this software for their + own purposes. By using this software, each user agrees that the + author(s) shall not be liable for damages of any kind in relation to + its use or performance. The author(s) do not warrant that this software + is fit for any purpose. -2. It's not precise enough as you already said. - -Mainly the term "Python style" was used to express that you should be able to -do whatever you're allowed to do with Python. - -The two authors (David and me) writing most of the code could agree on a quite -liberal open source license. But since we did not insist on written statements -to agree upon a license for the few contributions made by others we would have -to ask all contributors. Most of them are not subscribed to the list anymore I -guess. - -Frankly I'm not sure what to do to clarify this unfortunate situation. - -Ciao, Michael. +$Id: LICENCE,v 1.1 2002/09/18 18:51:22 stroeder Exp $