[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] portaudio: add license information
Yann E. MORIN
yann.morin.1998 at free.fr
Thu May 23 17:44:45 UTC 2013
Gilles, Baruch, All,
On 2013-05-23 07:49 -0700, Gilles Talis spake thusly:
> 2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at 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 E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
More information about the buildroot
mailing list