[Buildroot] [PATCH] xlib_libXv: correct license type

[Buildroot] [PATCH] xlib_libXv: correct license type

[Peter Korsgaard]

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.

Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
---
 package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk b/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
index 26f8badc5..d113741e0 100644
--- a/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
+++ b/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
@@ -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
-- 
2.11.0

[Buildroot] [PATCH] xlib_libXv: correct license type

[Rahul Bedarkar]

Hello Peter,

> 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.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
> ---
>  package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk b/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
> index 26f8badc5..d113741e0 100644
> --- a/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
> +++ b/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
> @@ -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

[Buildroot] [PATCH] xlib_libXv: correct license type

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Rahul" == Rahul Bedarkar <Rahul.Bedarkar@imgtec.com> writes:

 > Hello Peter,
 >> 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.
 >> 
 >> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
 >> ---
 >> package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk | 2 +-
 >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
 >> 
 >> diff --git a/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk b/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
 >> index 26f8badc5..d113741e0 100644
 >> --- a/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
 >> +++ b/package/x11r7/xlib_libXv/xlib_libXv.mk
 >> @@ -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.

Argh, indeed!

 > 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!

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH] xlib_libXv: correct license type

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> writes:

 > 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.

 > Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>

Committed after fixing up the s/ICS/ISC/ mixup and adding a note about
the OpenBSD license template as pointed out by Rahul, thanks!

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH] xlib_libXv: correct license type

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> writes:

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> writes:
 >> 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.

 >> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>

 > 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.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard