On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 14:22 -0400, .. ink .. wrote:
pwquality.h header has the following lines in the license section.
does not say what version of the GPL the work is released under.
* ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be distributed under the terms of
* the GNU Public License, in which case the provisions of the GPL are
* required INSTEAD OF the above restrictions. (This clause is
* necessary due to a potential bad interaction between the GPL and
* the restrictions contained in a BSD-style copyright.)
The "COPYING" file in the root directory has the same text but it also
includes the text for GPL v2.
The lack of specific version of the GPL in the above text does not tie
explicitly the work to the GPL v2, a user of the work will have to
assume the text refers to v2 of the GPL because thats the version that
is included in the COPYING file but this requires looking at it and
hence having the source code.
This inference can not be made from looking at the header file because
it does not contain text with any version of the GPL and i assume
thats where most people will look to find out the work license.
It will be nice if the above text had an explicit version of the GPL
to remove any ambiguity.
I clarified the text in the source code to mention GPL version 2 or
later. However you can choose basically any license which is compatible
with the 3 clause BSD license which is much less restrictive than the
GPL version 2 or later versions.
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.