From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 00:31:14 +0100
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/2] package/physfs: new package
In-Reply-To: <b370e822-a293-56ec-f151-69882e8b1786@gmail.com>
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>
 <b370e822-a293-56ec-f151-69882e8b1786@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f6177f1-6dd4-119c-e6a1-fadc9faf483a@mind.be>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net



On 05-03-17 23:13, Romain Naour wrote:
> Hi Arnout, all,
> 
> Le 05/03/2017 ? 23:06, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit :
>>
>>
>> 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).
> 
> Try with "any later version"

 Still don't see it, except in LGPL.txt where they explain that the library
should specify "any later version" if they want it to apply to a later version.

 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
>>
>>  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)
>> PHYSFS_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.txt src/lzma/lzma.txt src/lzma/LGPL.txt
> 
> Ok, thanks for the help!
> 
> Best regards,
> Romain
> 
>>
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Arnout
>>
>>
> 

-- 
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