From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 01:02:09 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 05/18] erlang-rebar: bump to version 2.6.1 In-Reply-To: <20160220231928.GR3418@free.fr> References: <1454443064-14269-1-git-send-email-fhunleth@troodon-software.com> <1454443064-14269-6-git-send-email-fhunleth@troodon-software.com> <56B67620.1040700@gmail.com> <20160220183731.57f5122f@free-electrons.com> <20160220180803.GQ3418@free.fr> <56C8F126.1040903@mind.be> <20160220231928.GR3418@free.fr> Message-ID: <56C8FE81.8040604@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 02/21/16 00:19, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Arnout, All, > > On 2016-02-21 00:05 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: >> On 02/20/16 19:08, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > [--SNIP--] >>> Well, that's not how licensing works. >>> >>> Individual files have their own licenses, and they retain those licenses >>> even when they are combined together. So, if you have two files under >>> two licenses, like so: >>> file-1.c MIT >>> file-2.c Apache-2.0 >> >> Actually, I think it's not really the files that carry a license. It is how you >> got it. This shows in packages that are dual licensed (i.e., with an OR), where >> it is possible that you got it under only one of those licenses (e.g. because it >> was combined with another work that puts constraints on it). > > Again, IANAL, TTYL, and so on... > > However, if some "other work" puts constraints on the file, then that > file still retains its own license; the rights you had under that > license are just diminished by those "constraints" of the license for > that "other work". > >> And unfortunately, it is not very clear under which license you received the >> code when you got it through a combined work. You _could_ claim that because you >> received these files as part of the erlang-rebar package, you have only received >> file-1.c under the MIT license. However, you could also claim that the >> distributors of erlang-rebar never intended to change the license of file-1.c, >> so that that individual file can still be used under the MIT license. So: >> situation is not clear IMHO. > > No, it's definitely not clear, as all licensing issues! :-) > > Still, I think we should not take the responisibility to do such an > in-depth licensing analysis, and that we should dtride of the safe side > by just listing all those licenses that apply (see below). +1 to that. Regards, Arnout [snip] -- 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