From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:40:45 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] bind: bump version to 9.11.0 In-Reply-To: <7938ab33-1e87-7374-35a0-7d5f4bf04072@imgtec.com> References: <20161011125423.38125-1-Vincent.Riera@imgtec.com> <874m4eosfn.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20161015120504.2e88e2f7@free-electrons.com> <7938ab33-1e87-7374-35a0-7d5f4bf04072@imgtec.com> Message-ID: <20161015124045.74b4eddc@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:28:53 +0200, Vicente Olivert Riera wrote: > that COPYRIGHT file doesn't contain the old license text. It has been > updated since 9.10.4-P3 (previous version), and now it contains a text > that specifies the license is MPL 2.0: > > -------------- > $ ~/bind-9.11.0 $ head -n5 COPYRIGHT > > Copyright (C) 1996-2016 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC") > > This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public > License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this > file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. > -------------- > > Isn't that enough? Ah, right, I got confused by the string "ISC", which is also the name of a license, but here is the name of the organization. *However*, if you read this file, you see that parts of bind are not under MPL 2.0, but instead under some other BSD-like licenses, the OpenSSL license, etc. Shouldn't we take these into account as well ? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com