[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] portaudio: add license information

[Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>]

Gilles, Baruch, All,

On 2013-05-23 07:49 -0700, Gilles Talis spake thusly:
> 2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>:
> > Baruch, All,
> >
> > On 2013-05-23 10:09 +0300, Baruch Siach spake thusly:
> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:59:04AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > [--SNIP--]
> >> > This is not really MIT, since there is additional text:
> >> >
> >> >  ---8<---
> >> >  * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however,
> >> >  * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding
> >> >  * requests:
> >> >  *
> >> >  * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
> >> >  * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
> >> >  * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also
> >> >  * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the
> >> >  * license above.
> >> >  ---8<---
> >> >
> >> > So I'd say:
> >> >     PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause)
> >> >
> >> > (which by the way makes it non-free software.)
> >>
> >> Well, the text you cite says explicitly that these are "non-binding requests".
> >> Would you still consider this non-free?
> >
> > Well, I poundered that, yes. But the way it is phrased is dubious.
> >
> > First, it states that it is a non-binding clause. But then the clause
> > states "[a]ny person [doing changes] is requested to send modifications
> > [upstream]." The term "requested" is a bit strong for a non-binding
> > clause.
> >
> > So, let me rephrase:
> >     (which by the way *may* make it non-free software.)
> >
> > But the final word should come from a legal counsel, of course. :-)
> >
> > Anyway, this is not "MIT" per-se.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann E. MORIN.
> 
> I actually had the same assumption as Baruch. I felt like the
> "non-binding requests" was the most important information in the text.
> Anyway, as you say, let's wait for a license expert to give final word
> on this.

What I meant by "legal counsel" was about the end-user contacting *his*
legal counsel, not us. We do not have such ressources.

> I'll send a patch later when we get confirmation that license type
> needs to be modified.

My proposal is still to have:
    PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause)

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'