From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:43:37 +0100
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/2] package/physfs: new package
In-Reply-To: <c341646a-fe08-f349-cb46-aed8d0430639@mind.be>
References: <20170301225611.11494-1-romain.naour@gmail.com>
 <4328635a-2687-59f6-a192-4af579aafb58@gmail.com>
 <20170305215137.1600833e@free-electrons.com>
 <755ee979-57de-4718-9fa0-5f7de1f05289@gmail.com>
 <20170305223749.3567d0af@free-electrons.com>
 <c341646a-fe08-f349-cb46-aed8d0430639@mind.be>
Message-ID: <20170306214337.GE3976@free.fr>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Arnout, Romain, Thomas, All,

On 2017-03-05 23:06 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
> On 05-03-17 22:37, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 22:14:02 +0100, Romain Naour wrote:
> >>> zlib license (physfs), LGPv2.1+ or CPL or special license (lzma)
> >>>
> >>>  ?  
> >>
> >> It seems some files are under public domain when the special license is used.
> >>
> >> SPECIAL EXCEPTION #3: Igor Pavlov, as the author of this code, expressly permits
> >> you to use code of the following files:
> >> BranchTypes.h, LzmaTypes.h, LzmaTest.c, LzmaStateTest.c, LzmaAlone.cpp,
> >> LzmaAlone.cs, LzmaAlone.java
> >> as public domain code.
> >>
> >> Maybe "special license" is enough ?
> > 
> > My understanding of lzma.txt is that you really have the choice between
> > those different licensing options, so I believe encoding all of them in
> > <pkg>_LICENSE is probably better.
> > 
> > Cc'ing Arnout and Yann to get their insight.
> 
>  I was just about to reply :-)
> 
>  First of all, I don't see any 'or later' language, so it's LGPL2.1 (the version
> mentioned in src/lzma/LGPL.txt).

That's a little bit more complicated, I think... :-(

The fact that COPYING contains the text of LGPLv2.1 is a strong
indication that this would be the only version that should apply.

However, the lzma.txt file, which contains legal blurbs, does not state
any version of the LGPL. As such, one may argue that any version may
apply, as stated in COPYING itself, quoting:

    If the Library does not specify a license version number, you may
    choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

So I would just say "LGPL".

>  I think the special cases are not interesting enough to warrant mentioning - we
> should consider the LICENSE as a strong hint, not as a definitive assertion (it
> is not entirely accurate in most packages). In addition, the CPL.html file which
> is supposed to be there, is missing. The top-level README also says "It uses the
> LGPL license, with exceptions for closed-source programs." This leads me to
> conclude that the physfs authors, when redistributint lzma, have decided to do
> so under LGPL and to drop the other license options.
> 
>  So I'd say:
> 
> PHYSFS_LICENSE = zlib license (physfs), LGPLv2.1 with exceptions (lzma)

Almost. I'd say:

    PHYSFS_LICENSE = zlib license (physfs), LGPL with exceptions (lzma)

> PHYSFS_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.txt src/lzma/lzma.txt src/lzma/LGPL.txt

Yup.

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.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'