xlib_libXv: correct license type
PATCH 1/1 xlib_libXv: correct license type
The license is actually closer to ICS than MIT, E.G.:
https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
vs
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
From COPYING:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Digital or MIT not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission.
E.G. this is the normal ICS text which has been extended with a BSD-3c style advertisinc clause. Both are permissive licenses, but it is more correct to call it ICS-like.
--- package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk +1 -1
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ XLIB_LIBXV_VERSION = 1.0.11 XLIB_LIBXV_SOURCE = libXv-$(XLIB_LIBXV_VERSION).tar.bz2 XLIB_LIBXV_SITE = http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/lib -XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE = MIT +XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE = ICS-like XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING XLIB_LIBXV_INSTALL_STAGING = YES XLIB_LIBXV_DEPENDENCIES = xlib_libX11 xlib_libXext xproto_videoproto xproto_xproto
Signature · 1 line
2.11.0
PATCH 1/1 xlib_libXv: correct license type
Hello Peter,
Quoted 29 lines
The license is actually closer to ICS than MIT, E.G.:
https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
vs
https://opensource.org/licenses/MITFrom COPYING:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Digital or MIT not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission.E.G. this is the normal ICS text which has been extended with a BSD-3c style advertisinc clause. Both are permissive licenses, but it is more correct to call it ICS-like.
Signed-off-by Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]>--- package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk +0
-0
package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk line 10
Quoted 5 lines
package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk +1
-1@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ XLIB_LIBXV_VERSION = 1.0.11 XLIB_LIBXV_SOURCE = libXv-$(XLIB_LIBXV_VERSION).tar.bz2 XLIB_LIBXV_SITE = http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/lib -XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE = MIT +XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE = ICS-like
I believe you mean ISC instead of ICS.
But to me, license for this package looks closer to OpenBSD template [1] because of "and distribute" wording in license text. In ISC license, it's "and/or distribute" [2]. This is just my view. May be it is better to check with upstream what license is it?
Thanks,
Rahul
[1] - http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license#History
PATCH 1/1 xlib_libXv: correct license type
Quoted 27 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Rahul" == Rahul Bedarkar <[email protected]> writes:
Hello Peter,
Quoted 24 lines
The license is actually closer to ICS than MIT, E.G.:
https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
vs
https://opensource.org/licenses/MITFrom COPYING:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Digital or MIT not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission.E.G. this is the normal ICS text which has been extended with a BSD-3c style advertisinc clause. Both are permissive licenses, but it is more correct to call it ICS-like.
Signed-off-by Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]>---
package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk| 2 +-1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Quoted 12 lines
package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk line 10
Quoted 10 lines
package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk +0
-0@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
XLIB_LIBXV_VERSION= 1.0.11XLIB_LIBXV_SOURCE= libXv-$(XLIB_LIBXV_VERSION).tar.bz2XLIB_LIBXV_SITE= http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/libpackage/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk +1
-1-XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE = MIT +XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE = ICS-likeI believe you mean ISC instead of ICS.
Argh, indeed!
Quoted 4 lines
But to me, license for this package looks closer to OpenBSD template [1] because of "and distribute" wording in license text. In ISC license, it's "and/or distribute" [2]. This is just my view. May be it is better to check with upstream what license is it?
Maybe. The two licenses are clearly closely related. The OpenBSD template also mentions that it is "modeled after the ISC license", so calling it ISC-like is imho still correct.
Thanks for the feedback!
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
PATCH 1/1 xlib_libXv: correct license type
In reply to Peter KorsgaardQuoted 16 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Peter" == Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> writes:
The license is actually closer to ICS than MIT, E.G.:
https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
vs
https://opensource.org/licenses/MITFrom COPYING:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Digital or MIT not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission.
Quoted 5 lines
E.G. this is the normal ICS text which has been extended with a BSD-3c style advertisinc clause. Both are permissive licenses, but it is more correct to call it ICS-like.
Signed-off-by Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]>
Committed after fixing up the s/ICS/ISC/ mixup and adding a note about the OpenBSD license template as pointed out by Rahul, thanks!
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
PATCH 1/1 xlib_libXv: correct license type
Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
"Peter" == Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> writes:
"Peter" == Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> writes:
The license is actually closer to ICS than MIT, E.G.:
https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
vs
https://opensource.org/licenses/MITFrom COPYING:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Digital or MIT not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
E.G. this is the normal ICS text which has been extended with a BSD-3c style advertisinc clause. Both are permissive licenses, but it is more correct to call it ICS-like.
Signed-off-by Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]>Committed after fixing up the s/ICS/ISC/ mixup and adding a note about the OpenBSD license template as pointed out by Rahul, thanks!
Committed to 2017.02.x, thanks.
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard