Please clarify the actual license

[hroncok]

The LICENSE file lists 2 licenses. A BSD-like one and also PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2. Do I choose freely? Are some bits licensed under BSD and other bits under PSF? Which bits?

setup.py has:

    license="BSD",

and

    'License :: OSI Approved :: BSD License',

Thanks for clarifying.

[PatrikKopkan]

Hi,
Maybe I can help determining the right licence.
It seems that you'd like code you wrote to be under BSD (so anyone can use it), but some bits are from Python so they need the Python licence. Is that right?

[hroncok]

@simonpercivall I want to include your package in Fedora and this is blocking me. We are very careful about licenses. Could you please clarify? Thank You.

[simonpercivall]

I'll try to respond later today, sorry for the delay.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 17:54, Miro Hrončok ***@***.***> wrote: @simonpercivall <https://github.com/simonpercivall> I want to include your package in Fedora and this is blocking me. We are very careful about licenses. Could you please clarify? Thank You. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#37 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJYO2Dil0Y0-_xqgdDHrXWSdqaMQXPfks5vVoo8gaJpZM4a25Pw> .

-- /Simon

[QuLogic]

Isn't this explained in the readme?

This library uses mature and core maintained code instead of trying to patch existing libraries. The unparse and the test_unparse modules are under the PSF license.

[hroncok]

Sorry about the noise.

[TTMaZa]

Hi there. We stumpled upon the same question. I've made a suggestions, that clearly brings out this "Dual" Licensing:

#64

Best regards
Manuel