libgdiplus: bump to version 5.6
PATCH 1/1 libgdiplus: bump to version 5.6
- This version removed the COPYING file (put back upstream but content is now a redirection to LICENSE)
- Add hash for license file
--- package/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.hash | 3 ++- package/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.mk | 9 +++++---- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
package/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.hash +2 -1
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ # Locally computed: -sha256 ce31da0c6952c8fd160813dfa9bf4a9a871bfe7284e9e3abff9a8ee689acfe58 libgdiplus-5.4.tar.gz +sha256 6a75e4a476695cd6a1475fd6b989423ecf73978fd757673669771d8a6e13f756 libgdiplus-5.6.tar.gz +sha256 e8668765ba016692388bf2927435e3cd2bba5d2e11d5c67583f5290094b3a626 src/carbon-private.h
package/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.mk +5 -4
@@ -4,15 +4,16 @@ # ################################################################################ -LIBGDIPLUS_VERSION = 5.4 +LIBGDIPLUS_VERSION = 5.6 LIBGDIPLUS_SITE = $(call github,mono,libgdiplus,$(LIBGDIPLUS_VERSION)) # Although there is a LICENSE file thas specifies LGPL or MPL-1.1, # looks like it is incorrect. The actual source files specify that -# they're licensed under MIT, and so does the COPYING file (and they -# all predate the addition of the LICENSE file). +# they're licensed under MIT, and so does the original (before its +# removal/update) COPYING file (and they all predate the addition of +# the LICENSE file). LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE = MIT -LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING src/carbon-private.h +LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE_FILES = src/carbon-private.h LIBGDIPLUS_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
Signature · 1 line
2.14.1
PATCH 1/1 libgdiplus: bump to version 5.6
Hello,
+Sergio.
package/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.mk line 18
Quoted 12 lines · Fabrice Fontaine
# Although there is a LICENSE file thas specifies LGPL or MPL-1.1,
# looks like it is incorrect. The actual source files specify thatpackage/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.mk +4
-3-# they're licensed under MIT, and so does the COPYING file (and they -# all predate the addition of the LICENSE file). +# they're licensed under MIT, and so does the original (before its +# removal/update) COPYING file (and they all predate the addition of +# the LICENSE file). LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE = MIT -LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING src/carbon-private.h +LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE_FILES = src/carbon-private.h LIBGDIPLUS_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
Hum, this feels weird. They have re-added a COPYING file pointing to the LICENSE file, which itself that says LGPL or MPL, so perhaps this isn't wrong after all ?
carbon-private.h might be MIT licensed, but the whole work may still be released under LGPL or MPL.
See https://github.com/mono/libgdiplus/blob/master/LICENSE
So I believe our assessment that the LICENSE file was wrong when it was saying LGPL or MPL-1.1 is not correct, and we should change the license details of libgdiplus to LGPL-2.1 or MPL-1.1.
Sergio, you originally contributed libgdiplus, what do you think ?
Best regards,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
PATCH 1/1 libgdiplus: bump to version 5.6
Hello,
Quoted 22 lines · Fabrice Fontaine
package/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.mk line 18
Quoted 13 lines
# Although there is a LICENSE file thas specifies LGPL or MPL-1.1,
# looks like it is incorrect. The actual source files specify thatpackage/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.mk +4
-3-# they're licensed under MIT, and so does the COPYING file (and they -# all predate the addition of the LICENSE file). +# they're licensed under MIT, and so does the original (before its +# removal/update) COPYING file (and they all predate the addition of +# the LICENSE file). LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE = MIT -LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING src/carbon-private.h +LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE_FILES = src/carbon-private.h LIBGDIPLUS_INSTALL_STAGING = YESHum, this feels weird. They have re-added a COPYING file pointing to the LICENSE file, which itself that says LGPL or MPL, so perhaps this isn't wrong after all ?
carbon-private.hmight be MIT licensed, but the whole work may still be released under LGPL or MPL.
Quoted 7 lines
See https://github.com/mono/libgdiplus/blob/master/LICENSE
So I believe our assessment that the LICENSE file was wrong when it was saying LGPL or MPL-1.1 is not correct, and we should change the license details of libgdiplus to LGPL-2.1 or MPL-1.1.
Sergio, you originally contributed libgdiplus, what do you think ?
I agree.
From the git commit logs, initially there was no LICENSE file and the license was MIT, as described in COPYING. Eight months later the LICENSE file was added with the message "Add new license", so we might assume the license changed to LGPL-2.1 or MPL-1.1, but they forgot to remove COPYING. In 2015 COPYING was removed and added later just because of autotools (based on the commit logs), but now pointing to LICENSE. So looks like our assessment of the license was wrong, and we should change to LGPL-2.1 or MPL-1.1.
Best regards,
Sergio Prado
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20180502/45feab23/attachment.html>
PATCH 1/1 libgdiplus: bump to version 5.6
Quoted 34 lines · Sergio Prado
Hello,
Quoted 22 lines · Fabrice Fontaine
Quoted 12 lines
?# Although there is a LICENSE file thas specifies LGPL or MPL-1.1, ?# looks like it is incorrect. The actual source files specify that
package/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.mk +3
-2-# they're licensed under MIT, and so does the COPYING file (and they -# all predate the addition of the LICENSE file). +# they're licensed under MIT, and so does the original (before its +# removal/update) COPYING file (and they all predate the addition of +# the LICENSE file).?LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE = MIT
package/libgdiplus/libgdiplus.mk +1
-1-LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING src/carbon-private.h +LIBGDIPLUS_LICENSE_FILES = src/carbon-private.hQuoted 1 line
?LIBGDIPLUS_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
Hum, this feels weird. They have re-added a COPYING file pointing to the LICENSE file, which itself that says LGPL or MPL, so perhaps this isn't wrong after all ?
carbon-private.hmight be MIT licensed, but the whole work may still be released under LGPL or MPL.Quoted 7 lines
See https://github.com/mono/libgdiplus/blob/master/LICENSE
So I believe our assessment that the LICENSE file was wrong when it was saying LGPL or MPL-1.1 is not correct, and we should change the license details of libgdiplus to LGPL-2.1 or MPL-1.1.
Sergio, you originally contributed libgdiplus, what do you think ?
I agree.
Quoted 7 lines
From the git commit logs, initially there was no LICENSE file and the license was MIT, as described in COPYING. Eight months later the LICENSE file was added with the message "Add new license", so we might assume the license changed to?LGPL-2.1 or MPL-1.1, but they forgot to remove COPYING. In 2015 COPYING was removed and added later just because of autotools (based on the commit logs), but now pointing to LICENSE. So looks like our?assessment of the license was wrong, and we should change to LGPL-2.1 or MPL-1.1.
So I did some research on this. It's complicated :-)
Since 2004 already, there has been a LICENSE file with the text "Libgdiplus is
licensed under the terms of the GNU Library GPL or the Mozilla Public License 1.1." and with the details of the MPL (but not the LGPL!) in MPL-1.1.html. However, no license headers in source files were updated.
In 2009, a spec file was added that says
License: LGPL v2.1 only; MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE (MPL/NPL); X11/MIT
This file was added by someone from Novell, and Novell is mentioned in all the copyright headers in the source files.
I haven't traced exactly when, but at some point contributions started
requiring copyright assignment to Xamarin. For contributions between the addition of the LICENSE file and the copyright assignments, I think the status is a little unclear.
Since 2016, instead of a copyright assignment, there is a Contributor License
Agreement which basically licenses the .NET Foundation to relicense the code under whatever license they want.
In September 2017, the MPL-1.1 and the LGPL-2.1 license texts were added to the
LICENSE file, and MPL-1.1.html was removed.
And finally, libgdiplus is part of the Mono project, and the Mono licensing FAQ
says: "The Mono runtime, compilers and tools and most of the class libraries are licensed under the MIT license." (but libgdiplus is not really part of the mono runtime, compilers, tools or class libraries; it's an independent library that is used by the Mono project, probably by nobody else).
Bottom line:
- The license situation really hasn't changed since 2004.
- Based on the information in the source tarball, it should be (LGPL-2.1 OR MPL-1.1) AND MIT.
- But the intention is probably MIT.
So I've opened an issue[1] to clarify the situation. I've also marked the v2 of
this patch as Deferred and delegated to me.
Regards,
Arnout
[1] https://github.com/mono/libgdiplus/issues/375
Quoted 11 lines
Best regards,
Sergio Prado
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Signature · 6 lines
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF