sam-ba: add license information

From: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
---
 package/sam-ba/sam-ba.mk |    8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

Simon,

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:00 +0100, spdawson@gmail.com wrote:

> +SAM_BA_LICENSE = BSD-like
> +SAM_BA_LICENSE_FILES = doc/readme.txt

Hum, is this really the case? I thought the source code for it was not
available? Well, it's true that a binary-only program can carry a BSD
license... but to me, having 'BSD-like' license on a binary-only
program sounds a bit odd.

Best regards,

Thomas

Hi Thomas, thanks for looking at this.

On 15 April 2013 09:32, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Simon,
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:00 +0100, spdawson@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> +SAM_BA_LICENSE = BSD-like
>> +SAM_BA_LICENSE_FILES = doc/readme.txt
>
> Hum, is this really the case? I thought the source code for it was not
> available? Well, it's true that a binary-only program can carry a BSD
> license... but to me, having 'BSD-like' license on a binary-only
> program sounds a bit odd.

Yes, agreed. I'm not sure what the right approach is, given that
sam-ba as distributed is a mixture of pre-built binaries, and (C and
Tcl) source code. Perhaps we just say "sam-ba license", which may be
less contentious...?

I'm pasting the contents of the doc/readme.txt file below for your information.

Simon.

/* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *         ATMEL Microcontroller Software Support
 * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * Copyright (c) 2012, Atmel Corporation
 *
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
 *
 * - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
 * this list of conditions and the disclaimer below.
 *
 * Atmel's name may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from
 * this software without specific prior written permission.
 *
 * DISCLAIMER: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ATMEL "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR
 * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 * MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE
 * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL ATMEL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
 * INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
 * LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA,
 * OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
 * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
 * NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE,
 * EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 */

On 15/04/13 10:40, Simon Dawson wrote:
> Hi Thomas, thanks for looking at this.
>
> On 15 April 2013 09:32, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>  wrote:
>> >Simon,
>> >
>> >On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:00 +0100,spdawson@gmail.com  wrote:
>> >
>>> >>+SAM_BA_LICENSE = BSD-like
>>> >>+SAM_BA_LICENSE_FILES = doc/readme.txt
>> >
>> >Hum, is this really the case? I thought the source code for it was not
>> >available? Well, it's true that a binary-only program can carry a BSD
>> >license... but to me, having 'BSD-like' license on a binary-only
>> >program sounds a bit odd.
> Yes, agreed. I'm not sure what the right approach is, given that
> sam-ba as distributed is a mixture of pre-built binaries, and (C and
> Tcl) source code. Perhaps we just say "sam-ba license", which may be
> less contentious...?

  I do like the "BSD-like" qualifier, though, because it tells you a lot 
more. How about "BSD-like (partly binary-only)"?

  Regards,
  Arnout

Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:01 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

>   I do like the "BSD-like" qualifier, though, because it tells you a lot 
> more. How about "BSD-like (partly binary-only)"?

Sounds good to me.

Thomas

On 17 April 2013 08:52, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:01 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>
>>   I do like the "BSD-like" qualifier, though, because it tells you a lot
>> more. How about "BSD-like (partly binary-only)"?
>
> Sounds good to me.

Okay; that sounds like a good compromise. Thanks for the suggestion.

Simon.