From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:21:40 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] schifra: new package In-Reply-To: <1345801194-28735-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com> References: <1345801194-28735-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20120825172140.4b4cdda7@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:39:54 +0100, spdawson at gmail.com a ?crit : > +SCHIFRA_LICENSE = schifra license > +SCHIFRA_LICENSE_FILES = schifra_license.txt Shouldn't we put something like "GPLv2 or commercial" here? Apparently, their license is: GPLv2 is you do something open-source, otherwise if you want to link in a proprietary application, you need to buy a commercial license. I would at least like to have explicitly "GPLv2" mentioned here as it would more clearly raise the attention of people checking the license compatibility of the libraries they are using. Luca, thoughts? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com