package/cairo: improve license information
PATCH 1/1 package/cairo: improve license information
Cairo can be licenced under MPL and license copy are in COPYING-LGPL-2.1 and COPYING-MPL-1.1.
--- package/cairo/cairo.mk | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
package/cairo/cairo.mk +2 -2
@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ CAIRO_VERSION = 1.14.8 CAIRO_SOURCE = cairo-$(CAIRO_VERSION).tar.xz -CAIRO_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1+ -CAIRO_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING +CAIRO_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1+ or MPL +CAIRO_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING COPYING-LGPL-2.1 COPYING-MPL-1.1 CAIRO_SITE = http://cairographics.org/releases CAIRO_INSTALL_STAGING = YES CAIRO_AUTORECONF = YES
Signature · 1 line
2.9.3
PATCH 1/1 package/cairo: improve license information
Hi Romain,
Quoted 2 lines · Romain Naour
Cairo can be licenced under MPL and license copy are in COPYING-LGPL-2.1 and COPYING-MPL-1.1.
As per COPYING file, this dual licensing only applies to library and other auxiliary components (tests, utils, etc) may be under different licenses.
Quoted 11 lines
Signed-off-by Romain Naour <[email protected]>--- package/cairo/cairo.mk | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)package/cairo/cairo.mk +0
-0
package/cairo/cairo.mk line 9
Quoted 6 lines
package/cairo/cairo.mk +1
-2@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ CAIRO_VERSION = 1.14.8 CAIRO_SOURCE = cairo-$(CAIRO_VERSION).tar.xz -CAIRO_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1+ -CAIRO_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING +CAIRO_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1+ or MPL
License string for LGPL should be "LGPLv2.1" because license text doesn't have "or (at your option) any later version;" clause.
There are many versions of MPL license and COPYING file specifically mentions MPLv1.1
So, license string should be "LGPLv2.1 or MPLv1.1 (library)"
Thanks,
Rahul
PATCH 1/1 package/cairo: improve license information
Hello,
Quoted 2 lines · Rahul Bedarkar
License string for LGPL should be "LGPLv2.1" because license text doesn't have "or (at your option) any later version;" clause.
The license file itself never says "or (at your option) any later version". The license text of the GPL or LGPL is always the text of one specific version of the license. To know whether "or later" applies or not, you usually need to look at the comments in the code. In the case of cairo, they say:
* This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it either under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
* License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software Foundation
* (the "LGPL") or, at your option, under the terms of the Mozilla
* Public License Version 1.1 (the "MPL"). If you do not alter this
* notice, a recipient may use your version of this file under either
* the MPL or the LGPL.
Which indeed indicates LGPLv2.1 only, and not any other version.
Thanks,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 package/cairo: improve license information
Hello,
Quoted 11 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Hello,
Quoted 2 lines · Rahul Bedarkar
License string for LGPL should be "LGPLv2.1" because license text doesn't have "or (at your option) any later version;" clause.
The license file itself never says "or (at your option) any later version". The license text of the GPL or LGPL is always the text of one specific version of the license. To know whether "or later" applies or not, you usually need to look at the comments in the code.
Yes, I was referring to license text from source file header. But I agree that my comment didn't make it clear.
Thanks,
Rahul
PATCH 1/1 package/cairo: improve license information
Hi Rahul, Thomas,
Le 08/03/2017 ? 07:55, Rahul Bedarkar a ?crit :
Quoted 10 lines
Hello,
Quoted 7 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Hello,
Quoted 2 lines · Rahul Bedarkar
License string for LGPL should be "LGPLv2.1" because license text doesn't have "or (at your option) any later version;" clause.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The license file itself never says "or (at your option) any later version". The license text of the GPL or LGPL is always the text of one specific version of the license. To know whether "or later" applies or not, you usually need to look at the comments in the code.
Yes, I was referring to license text from source file header. But I agree that my comment didn't make it clear.
Thanks for the review!
I'll fix
Best regards,
Romain
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks,
Rahul