From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:46:01 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] sam-ba: add license information In-Reply-To: References: <1366010340-10833-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com> <20130415103252.26d79960@skate> Message-ID: <516E3719.3000502@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 15/04/13 10:40, Simon Dawson wrote: > Hi Thomas, thanks for looking at this. > > On 15 April 2013 09:32, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: >> >Simon, >> > >> >On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:00 +0100,spdawson at gmail.com wrote: >> > >>> >>+SAM_BA_LICENSE = BSD-like >>> >>+SAM_BA_LICENSE_FILES = doc/readme.txt >> > >> >Hum, is this really the case? I thought the source code for it was not >> >available? Well, it's true that a binary-only program can carry a BSD >> >license... but to me, having 'BSD-like' license on a binary-only >> >program sounds a bit odd. > Yes, agreed. I'm not sure what the right approach is, given that > sam-ba as distributed is a mixture of pre-built binaries, and (C and > Tcl) source code. Perhaps we just say "sam-ba license", which may be > less contentious...? I do like the "BSD-like" qualifier, though, because it tells you a lot more. How about "BSD-like (partly binary-only)"? 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: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F