Message ID | 1366010340-10833-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
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.
diff --git a/package/sam-ba/sam-ba.mk b/package/sam-ba/sam-ba.mk index 067bdf1..da41897 100644 --- a/package/sam-ba/sam-ba.mk +++ b/package/sam-ba/sam-ba.mk @@ -1,6 +1,14 @@ +############################################################# +# +# sam-ba +# +############################################################# + SAM_BA_SITE = http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/ SAM_BA_VERSION = 2.12 SAM_BA_SOURCE = sam-ba_$(SAM_BA_VERSION).zip +SAM_BA_LICENSE = BSD-like +SAM_BA_LICENSE_FILES = doc/readme.txt define HOST_SAM_BA_EXTRACT_CMDS unzip -d $(BUILD_DIR) $(DL_DIR)/$(SAM_BA_SOURCE)