Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461305 --- Comment #10 from Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-10 14:35:09 EDT --- sorry, I fat fingered your email on my note to him, and your copy bounced, This is the reply from the author: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Neil Horman wrote: > I'm in the process of trying to get > pam_kcoda packaged for fedora: cool ;) - pam_kcoda was one of my first FLOSS projects while student; Ivan Popov took over maintaining the software in 2001 and added Kerberos support - I have not heard from him since years now. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461305 > Your name is in the docs, but I just got a bounce from the address that was > listed there. Some quick googling led me to you at this address so I thought I > would write and ask, if you are indeed the author of that package: > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/pre/modules/pam_kcoda-v0.4.tgz I'm the original author, but no license expert ;) > And if you are, if you could clarify what version of the GPL you intended to > distribute it under. My impression is that you intended to distribute under the > GPLv1 but I'd like to be sure. Feel free to release pam_kcoda under GPL v2 or 3.., MIT or BSD license whatever suits you best. I wrote the original code in GPL v1 as was Coda (and PAM?) in 1999 - IIRC Ivan asked to release it under BSD conditions and probably then the license mess started.. > Could you by any chance update the upstream > package with a COPYING file with a specific license, or clarify what your intent > was, either in the above bugzilla or via email? I have no idea how this ended up on http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/pre/modules/ and don't have write permissions there [yet]. If necessary I con roll a new release mid next week (I'll be traveling and am only sporadically online during the next days) . Do you know any PAM devs? cheers, robin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjIAFAACgkQeVUk8U+VK0KLqwCgoCDRuJxkhKqhKVsPTFT19buI x38An1DtWXjQ2HK7aJ4CpbNZ99sAJhfi =Sfjy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- So, if we change the spec License tag to be GPLv2+, will that be sufficient until a new version is released from Robin with a proper license file? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review