2011/1/17 Ville-Pekka Vainio vpiva...@cs.helsinki.fi:
granted us permission to redistribute doc-file freely w/o
modifications. I hope that it's ok for content.
I would like to get a confirmation from someone that this is OK in
Fedora before accepting the package.
without the right to
On 01/16/2011 06:10 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
Also he kindly
granted us permission to redistribute doc-file freely w/o
modifications. I hope that it's ok for content.
I would like to get a confirmation from someone that this is OK in
Fedora before accepting the package.
Documentation
su, 2011-01-16 kello 13:22 +0300, Peter Lemenkov kirjoitti:
I already contacted Justin Sheeny, one of the upstream developers,
regarding legal status of the erlang-bitcask. He replied that these
files are indeed SSL 2.0 licensed, and the necessary headers will be
added to these files very soon
Hello Peter,
I am reviewing
erlang-skerlhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652648and
the issue I am facing is similar to what Ville-Pekka reports. In this
case, some of the c source/header files and erlang source files are without
license headers.
Could you ask upstream to include
On 01/13/2011 04:17 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
1. All other relevant source files have a license header except
include/bitcask.hrl and c_src/erl_nif_compat.h. I'm not sure if they
constitute a work in terms of copyright and should have licenses. What
do you think?
I think those files
Hi,
I'm reviewing erlang-bitcask for Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623. A good way of
browsing through upstream source is here:
https://bitbucket.org/basho/bitcask/src.
Upstream doesn't have a LICENSE file or similar and the license is not
mentioned in the README file
