Mono new package
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first · linked by author and title
- v6 Latest posting 2/20 of 2 patches 0 repliesNew
- v6 posting 1/20 of 2 patches 0 repliesSuperseded
Patches in v6 posting 2/2 No applies recorded yet
None of the 2 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v6 yet.
Cover letter [Buildroot] [PATCH v6 0/2] Mono new package
Dear Angelo,
thank you for the follow-up.
Quoted 7 lines · Angelo Compagnucci
Dear Luca,
Quoted 2 lines
BTW, Angelo, Thomas, where did you get licensing info when writing/committing the package?
Mono is a complex piece of software composed by several components, so the licensing scheme is complex. I'll try to summarize here.
Yes, it's very complex. If I were the Mono developer I'd probably split each part in a different package. But this is not a Buildroot issue of course.
Back in topic, I don't use Mono, hence I don't know the meaning of "mcs", "gmcs", "jay", "boehm" etc, which doesn't help.
Quoted 2 lines
The file COPYING.LIB is quite explicative:
Oops, I looked in LICENSE. The fact that there are at least 3 different explanations (website, LICENSE and COPYING.LIB) does not help me either.
Quoted 3 lines
"The Mono runtime is licensed under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License, version 2.
This is coherent with the website, while LICENSE states LGPL, without specifying a version. So LGPLv2 should be correct.
Quoted 5 lines
The eglib directory is licensed under the terms of the MIT X11 license and is a drop-in replacement for Mono's use of glib 2.0 (which was LGPL).
Quoted 7 lines
The Boehm licensing information is in the libgc directory
The SGen Garbage Collector is under the terms of the MIT X11 license
The class libraries under mono/mcs are unless otherwise stated under the MIT X11 license.
So eglib, boehm and the garbage collector are part of the runtime, correct?
Quoted 4 lines
Open source Microsoft code is licensed under the original terms which is either MS-PL for older components, or dual licensed MS-PL/Apache2 licensed."
But we have no mention of MS-PL nor Apache2 in MONO_LICENSE.
Where is the Microsoft code used? In the runtime?
Quoted 4 lines
* The C# compiler is dual-licensed under the MIT/X11 license and the GNU General Public License (GPL).
Quoted 8 lines
Every file inside mcs/mcs folder has this preamble "Dual licensed under the terms of the MIT X11 or GNU GPL"
* The tools are released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
Not every file has a license in it's preamble, but the most part show a GPL preamble.
Uh, where are these "tools" located?
In the tools/ subdir I can't find any evidence of a GPL license:
$ git grep -i -C3 licens -- tools/ | grep -i general $
Maybe you refer to another subdir?
Quoted 9 lines
* The class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license.
Every file inside mcs/class show a MIT.X11 preamble
It's complex but it shows some sense!
For the practical point of view of using it, you should comply with the license of the software you ship so the mono runtime and mono class only (LGPL2, MIT)
That's correct if you ship a target, not if you ship an SDK (which is basically the stuff that is produced by Buildroot in output/host/). If you do, you have host-mono in the SDK and this pulls in GPL and other licenses.
Is my understanding correct?
Quoted 2 lines
Hope this clarify!
Yes, it is less fuzzy now, thanks.
But unfortunately, due to my poor knowledge of the Mono project, I can't build myself a strong opinion on what the correct MONO_LICENSE value should be. But maybe you can further improve the current value starting from my questions above (or clarify that the current value is ok).
Regards,
Signature · 1 line
Luca