| Message ID | 1369268647-13128-4-git-send-email-gilles.talis@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On 2013-05-22 17:24 -0700, Gilles Talis spake thusly: > Signed-off-by: Gilles Talis <gilles.talis@gmail.com> > --- > package/portaudio/portaudio.mk | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk b/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk > index 34b0bd9..917702e 100644 > --- a/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk > +++ b/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk > @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ PORTAUDIO_SITE = http://www.portaudio.com/archives > PORTAUDIO_SOURCE = pa_stable_$(PORTAUDIO_VERSION).tgz > PORTAUDIO_INSTALL_STAGING = YES > PORTAUDIO_MAKE = $(MAKE1) > +PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = MIT This is not really MIT, since there is additional text: ---8<--- * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however, * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding * requests: * * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the * license above. ---8<--- So I'd say: PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) (which by the way makes it non-free software.) Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
Hi Yann, On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:59:04AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > On 2013-05-22 17:24 -0700, Gilles Talis spake thusly: > > Signed-off-by: Gilles Talis <gilles.talis@gmail.com> > > --- > > package/portaudio/portaudio.mk | 2 ++ > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk b/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk > > index 34b0bd9..917702e 100644 > > --- a/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk > > +++ b/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk > > @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ PORTAUDIO_SITE = http://www.portaudio.com/archives > > PORTAUDIO_SOURCE = pa_stable_$(PORTAUDIO_VERSION).tgz > > PORTAUDIO_INSTALL_STAGING = YES > > PORTAUDIO_MAKE = $(MAKE1) > > +PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = MIT > > This is not really MIT, since there is additional text: > > ---8<--- > * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however, > * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding > * requests: > * > * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is > * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that > * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also > * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the > * license above. > ---8<--- > > So I'd say: > PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) > > (which by the way makes it non-free software.) Well, the text you cite says explicitly that these are "non-binding requests". Would you still consider this non-free? baruch
Baruch, All, On 2013-05-23 10:09 +0300, Baruch Siach spake thusly: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:59:04AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: [--SNIP--] > > This is not really MIT, since there is additional text: > > > > ---8<--- > > * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however, > > * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding > > * requests: > > * > > * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is > > * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that > > * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also > > * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the > > * license above. > > ---8<--- > > > > So I'd say: > > PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) > > > > (which by the way makes it non-free software.) > > Well, the text you cite says explicitly that these are "non-binding requests". > Would you still consider this non-free? Well, I poundered that, yes. But the way it is phrased is dubious. First, it states that it is a non-binding clause. But then the clause states "[a]ny person [doing changes] is requested to send modifications [upstream]." The term "requested" is a bit strong for a non-binding clause. So, let me rephrase: (which by the way *may* make it non-free software.) But the final word should come from a legal counsel, of course. :-) Anyway, this is not "MIT" per-se. Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
Yann, Baruch, all 2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>: > Baruch, All, > > On 2013-05-23 10:09 +0300, Baruch Siach spake thusly: >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:59:04AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > [--SNIP--] >> > This is not really MIT, since there is additional text: >> > >> > ---8<--- >> > * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however, >> > * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding >> > * requests: >> > * >> > * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is >> > * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that >> > * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also >> > * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the >> > * license above. >> > ---8<--- >> > >> > So I'd say: >> > PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) >> > >> > (which by the way makes it non-free software.) >> >> Well, the text you cite says explicitly that these are "non-binding requests". >> Would you still consider this non-free? > > Well, I poundered that, yes. But the way it is phrased is dubious. > > First, it states that it is a non-binding clause. But then the clause > states "[a]ny person [doing changes] is requested to send modifications > [upstream]." The term "requested" is a bit strong for a non-binding > clause. > > So, let me rephrase: > (which by the way *may* make it non-free software.) > > But the final word should come from a legal counsel, of course. :-) > > Anyway, this is not "MIT" per-se. > > Regards, > Yann E. MORIN. I actually had the same assumption as Baruch. I felt like the "non-binding requests" was the most important information in the text. Anyway, as you say, let's wait for a license expert to give final word on this. I'll send a patch later when we get confirmation that license type needs to be modified. Thanks Regards, Gilles.
Gilles, Baruch, All, On 2013-05-23 07:49 -0700, Gilles Talis spake thusly: > 2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>: > > Baruch, All, > > > > On 2013-05-23 10:09 +0300, Baruch Siach spake thusly: > >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:59:04AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > [--SNIP--] > >> > This is not really MIT, since there is additional text: > >> > > >> > ---8<--- > >> > * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however, > >> > * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding > >> > * requests: > >> > * > >> > * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is > >> > * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that > >> > * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also > >> > * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the > >> > * license above. > >> > ---8<--- > >> > > >> > So I'd say: > >> > PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) > >> > > >> > (which by the way makes it non-free software.) > >> > >> Well, the text you cite says explicitly that these are "non-binding requests". > >> Would you still consider this non-free? > > > > Well, I poundered that, yes. But the way it is phrased is dubious. > > > > First, it states that it is a non-binding clause. But then the clause > > states "[a]ny person [doing changes] is requested to send modifications > > [upstream]." The term "requested" is a bit strong for a non-binding > > clause. > > > > So, let me rephrase: > > (which by the way *may* make it non-free software.) > > > > But the final word should come from a legal counsel, of course. :-) > > > > Anyway, this is not "MIT" per-se. > > > > Regards, > > Yann E. MORIN. > > I actually had the same assumption as Baruch. I felt like the > "non-binding requests" was the most important information in the text. > Anyway, as you say, let's wait for a license expert to give final word > on this. What I meant by "legal counsel" was about the end-user contacting *his* legal counsel, not us. We do not have such ressources. > I'll send a patch later when we get confirmation that license type > needs to be modified. My proposal is still to have: PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
Yann, 2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>: > Gilles, Baruch, All, > > On 2013-05-23 07:49 -0700, Gilles Talis spake thusly: >> 2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>: >> > Baruch, All, >> > >> > On 2013-05-23 10:09 +0300, Baruch Siach spake thusly: >> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:59:04AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: >> > [--SNIP--] >> >> > This is not really MIT, since there is additional text: >> >> > >> >> > ---8<--- >> >> > * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however, >> >> > * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding >> >> > * requests: >> >> > * >> >> > * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is >> >> > * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that >> >> > * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also >> >> > * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the >> >> > * license above. >> >> > ---8<--- >> >> > >> >> > So I'd say: >> >> > PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) >> >> > >> >> > (which by the way makes it non-free software.) >> >> >> >> Well, the text you cite says explicitly that these are "non-binding requests". >> >> Would you still consider this non-free? >> > >> > Well, I poundered that, yes. But the way it is phrased is dubious. >> > >> > First, it states that it is a non-binding clause. But then the clause >> > states "[a]ny person [doing changes] is requested to send modifications >> > [upstream]." The term "requested" is a bit strong for a non-binding >> > clause. >> > >> > So, let me rephrase: >> > (which by the way *may* make it non-free software.) >> > >> > But the final word should come from a legal counsel, of course. :-) >> > >> > Anyway, this is not "MIT" per-se. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Yann E. MORIN. >> >> I actually had the same assumption as Baruch. I felt like the >> "non-binding requests" was the most important information in the text. >> Anyway, as you say, let's wait for a license expert to give final word >> on this. > > What I meant by "legal counsel" was about the end-user contacting *his* > legal counsel, not us. We do not have such ressources. Ooops... all apologies. Misunderstood that. >> I'll send a patch later when we get confirmation that license type >> needs to be modified. > > My proposal is still to have: > PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) Yeah, I think you're right. Let me send a new patch. Thanks Regards Gilles.
diff --git a/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk b/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk index 34b0bd9..917702e 100644 --- a/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk +++ b/package/portaudio/portaudio.mk @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ PORTAUDIO_SITE = http://www.portaudio.com/archives PORTAUDIO_SOURCE = pa_stable_$(PORTAUDIO_VERSION).tgz PORTAUDIO_INSTALL_STAGING = YES PORTAUDIO_MAKE = $(MAKE1) +PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = MIT +PORTAUDIO_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.txt PORTAUDIO_DEPENDENCIES = \ $(if $(BR2_PACKAGE_PORTAUDIO_WITH_ALSA),alsa-lib)
Signed-off-by: Gilles Talis <gilles.talis@gmail.com> --- package/portaudio/portaudio.mk | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)