Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LICENSE file #79

Closed
luisenp opened this issue Jul 7, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

LICENSE file #79

luisenp opened this issue Jul 7, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@luisenp
Copy link

luisenp commented Jul 7, 2023

Hi authors! We are currently using your package in Theseus. We are considering adding a local copy of urdf_parser_py to our third party folder as a fallback import for some use cases were we can't easily install from pip. However, we weren't sure if this was allowed by your license.

From your package.xml it seems that you considered a BSD-license, however I don't see a LICENSE file in your repository. Could you include a file with the license type you are using?

Thanks!

@luisenp
Copy link
Author

luisenp commented Jul 7, 2023

Oh, just noticed that this seems to be added in the ros branch. I was using melodic-devel as reference, which is the link I get from pypi. Was this the wrong place to look?

@luisenp
Copy link
Author

luisenp commented Jul 7, 2023

I have updated my code to match tag 1.2.1, which also includes LICENSE, so I'll close this issue.

@luisenp luisenp closed this as completed Jul 7, 2023
@traversaro
Copy link
Contributor

Oh, just noticed that this seems to be added in the ros branch. I was using melodic-devel as reference, which is the link I get from pypi. Was this the wrong place to look?

I think this is a valid point, melodic-devel is the default branch while latest tags are done on the ros2 branch, probably it would make sense to change the default branch?

Regarding the pypi package, note that it just contains a really old version of the package and as far as I know is not currently maintained.

@traversaro
Copy link
Contributor

I forgot to reference this related PR: #77 .

@luisenp
Copy link
Author

luisenp commented Jul 10, 2023

Regarding the pypi package, note that it just contains a really old version of the package and as far as I know is not currently maintained.

@traversaro this is good to know, thanks for the heads up!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants