jmgurney
commented
8 years ago Also, your mocktest-0.7.tar.gz on pypi does not include the LICENSE file, so mocktest 0.7 from pypi is not LGPL licensed.
Open jmgurney opened 8 years ago
jmgurney
commented
8 years ago Also, your mocktest-0.7.tar.gz on pypi does not include the LICENSE file, so mocktest 0.7 from pypi is not LGPL licensed.
timbertson
commented
8 years ago Ugh, a mess indeed - my apologies. I suspect the .xml version was a bad copy-paste, the LICENSE is more authoritative - it is LGPL software. I've taken the classifier out of XML file (let the LICENSE be canonical), and published 0.7.2 which is the current master (only a few commits ahead of 0.7) plus the LICENSE file. 0.7.1 doesn't exist - I screwed up the 0.7.1 upload because I haven't really used pypi for years.
To be honest, I would personally be happy to relax to BSD - it's been a while since I did anything on mocktest, so I'm happy for it to see whatever use it can. I have minimal third-party contributions, but even so I believe I can't change the license without getting their permission. In which case, it'll remain LGPL unless somebody else wants to chase up those contributors for me ;).
In your LICENSE document, you say LGPLv3, but you list: "License :: OSI Approved :: BSD License", as a classifier.
Also, you have license=GPLv3 in the same area.
So, is it GPLv3, LGPLv3 or BSD licensed? I'd prefer BSD licensed as it would alleviate all legal concerns I have. In #3 it looks like you intended to change it to LGPL but didn't complete the change. I believe that LGPL is acceptable for my project, but If it is still GPL'd, there is no way I can use your software.
Each .py file should have a license in it. For some reason the installed version does not include the LICENSE file, nor author, which would prevent many commercial companies from being able to use the code.
Until you fix these issues, and roll a new release, I cannot use the software. The legal state of the code is too indeterminate to risk.