[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/cairo: improve license information

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/cairo: improve license information

[Romain Naour]

Cairo can be licenced under MPL and license copy are in COPYING-LGPL-2.1
and COPYING-MPL-1.1.

Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com>
---
 package/cairo/cairo.mk | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/cairo/cairo.mk b/package/cairo/cairo.mk
index 761c6f4..137d348 100644
--- a/package/cairo/cairo.mk
+++ b/package/cairo/cairo.mk
@@ -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
-- 
2.9.3

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/cairo: improve license information

[Rahul Bedarkar]

Hi Romain,

On Tuesday 07 March 2017 02:32 AM, Romain Naour wrote:
> 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.

>
> Signed-off-by: Romain Naour <romain.naour@gmail.com>
> ---
>  package/cairo/cairo.mk | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/package/cairo/cairo.mk b/package/cairo/cairo.mk
> index 761c6f4..137d348 100644
> --- a/package/cairo/cairo.mk
> +++ b/package/cairo/cairo.mk
> @@ -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

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/cairo: improve license information

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:54:24 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote:

> 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
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/cairo: improve license information

[Rahul Bedarkar]

Hello,

On Wednesday 08 March 2017 01:47 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:54:24 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote:
>
>> 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

[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/cairo: improve license information

[Romain Naour]

Hi Rahul, Thomas,

Le 08/03/2017 ? 07:55, Rahul Bedarkar a ?crit :
> Hello,
> 
> On Wednesday 08 March 2017 01:47 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:54:24 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote:
>>
>>> 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 for the review!
I'll fix

Best regards,
Romain

> 
> Thanks,
> Rahul