[2/3] mxml: add license information

Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>
---
 package/mxml/mxml.mk |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Le Wed,  1 Aug 2012 07:48:58 +0300,
Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> a écrit :

> +MXML_LICENSE = LGPLv2+
> +MXML_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING

I haven't applied this one, because the situation is a bit more
complicated here. mxml is released under LGPLv2+ + some special
exceptions. See the COPYING file:

                           Mini-XML License
                          September 18, 2010


The Mini-XML library and included programs are provided under the
terms of the GNU Library General Public License version 2 (LGPL2)
with the following exceptions:

  1. Static linking of applications to the Mini-XML library
does not constitute a derivative work and does not require
the author to provide source code for the application, use
the shared Mini-XML libraries, or link their applications
against a user-supplied version of Mini-XML.

If you link the application to a modified version of
Mini-XML, then the changes to Mini-XML must be provided
under the terms of the LGPL2 in sections 1, 2, and 4.

  2. You do not have to provide a copy of the Mini-XML license
with programs that are linked to the Mini-XML library, nor
do you have to identify the Mini-XML license in your
program or documentation as required by section 6 of the
LGPL2.


^L                GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                         Version 2, June 1991

[... rest of the LGPLv2 text ...]

I am not sure how to encode this into the _LICENSE field. Luca?

Thomas

Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Wed,  1 Aug 2012 07:48:58 +0300,
> Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> a écrit :
>
>> +MXML_LICENSE = LGPLv2+
>> +MXML_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
>
> I haven't applied this one, because the situation is a bit more
> complicated here. mxml is released under LGPLv2+ + some special
> exceptions. See the COPYING file:
>
>                             Mini-XML License
>                            September 18, 2010
>
>
> The Mini-XML library and included programs are provided under the
> terms of the GNU Library General Public License version 2 (LGPL2)
> with the following exceptions:
>
>    1. Static linking of applications to the Mini-XML library
> does not constitute a derivative work and does not require
> the author to provide source code for the application, use
> the shared Mini-XML libraries, or link their applications
> against a user-supplied version of Mini-XML.
>
> If you link the application to a modified version of
> Mini-XML, then the changes to Mini-XML must be provided
> under the terms of the LGPL2 in sections 1, 2, and 4.
>
>    2. You do not have to provide a copy of the Mini-XML license
> with programs that are linked to the Mini-XML library, nor
> do you have to identify the Mini-XML license in your
> program or documentation as required by section 6 of the
> LGPL2.
>
>
> ^L                GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>                           Version 2, June 1991
>
> [... rest of the LGPLv2 text ...]
>
> I am not sure how to encode this into the _LICENSE field. Luca?

Well, the fallback for fancy licenses is "<package_name> license", as in
"bzip2 license", for example.

But in cases like this, where the license is very similar to a well-known
one, I would prefer something like "LGPLv2+ with exceptions".That is much
more informative, while still clearly stating this not equal to an LGPLv2+.

Luca

Hi Luca, Thomas,

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 10:24:45PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> >Le Wed,  1 Aug 2012 07:48:58 +0300,
> >Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> a écrit :
> >
> >>+MXML_LICENSE = LGPLv2+
> >>+MXML_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
> >
> >I haven't applied this one, because the situation is a bit more
> >complicated here. mxml is released under LGPLv2+ + some special
> >exceptions. See the COPYING file:

[snip]

> >I am not sure how to encode this into the _LICENSE field. Luca?
> 
> Well, the fallback for fancy licenses is "<package_name> license", as in
> "bzip2 license", for example.
> 
> But in cases like this, where the license is very similar to a well-known
> one, I would prefer something like "LGPLv2+ with exceptions".That is much
> more informative, while still clearly stating this not equal to an LGPLv2+.

Ok. I'll resubmit the patch.

baruch