From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:00:31 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC v2 19/31] bzip2: define license In-Reply-To: <201203072252.46180.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> References: <1331153911-22277-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <1331153911-22277-20-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <201203072252.46180.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> Message-ID: <4F5A291F.1020101@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Yann E. MORIN wrote: > On Wednesday 07 March 2012 21:58:19 Luca Ceresoli wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli >> --- >> package/bzip2/bzip2.mk | 2 ++ >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/package/bzip2/bzip2.mk b/package/bzip2/bzip2.mk >> index 1bc4449..028c2f2 100644 >> --- a/package/bzip2/bzip2.mk >> +++ b/package/bzip2/bzip2.mk >> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ BZIP2_VERSION:=1.0.5 >> BZIP2_SONAME=1.0.4 >> BZIP2_SOURCE:=bzip2-$(BZIP2_VERSION).tar.gz >> BZIP2_SITE:=http://www.bzip.org/$(BZIP2_VERSION) >> +BZIP2_LICENSE = BSD-like > I think it makes sense to have: > > value meaning > ------------------------------- > BSD-4c Original BSD 4-clause > BSD Alias for the above > BSD-3c BSD 3-clause > BSD-2c BSD 2-clause You're right, I've been a bit lazy about BSD licenses, as I don't know in detail all the variants. As I was mostly taking care of the core implementation I skipped that part. I promise I'll do this homework next time. :-) BTW, 4-clause BSD-like licenses have each a different copyright notice on top (take for example the bzip2 license). Are them still *Original* BSD 4-clause licenses? I think they are usually considered as such, which is ok according to common sense, but is this correct from a strict legal point of view? Does anybody has a precise knowledge or a trustworthy link to an answer? Luca