From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:24:45 +0200
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/3] mxml: add license information
In-Reply-To: <20120801201023.05c53086@skate>
References: <5d40aa0e8f5d5dc6b863bf1a0af427a377e75989.1343796460.git.baruch@tkos.co.il>
 <9e9f83eae727c218f9ee7cfc2a7d86772a12a308.1343796460.git.baruch@tkos.co.il>
 <20120801201023.05c53086@skate>
Message-ID: <5019908D.7080205@lucaceresoli.net>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Wed,  1 Aug 2012 07:48:58 +0300,
> Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> a ?crit :
>
>> +MXML_LICENSE = LGPLv2+
>> +MXML_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
>
> I haven't applied this one, because the situation is a bit more
> complicated here. mxml is released under LGPLv2+ + some special
> exceptions. See the COPYING file:
>
>                             Mini-XML License
>                            September 18, 2010
>
>
> The Mini-XML library and included programs are provided under the
> terms of the GNU Library General Public License version 2 (LGPL2)
> with the following exceptions:
>
>    1. Static linking of applications to the Mini-XML library
> does not constitute a derivative work and does not require
> the author to provide source code for the application, use
> the shared Mini-XML libraries, or link their applications
> against a user-supplied version of Mini-XML.
>
> If you link the application to a modified version of
> Mini-XML, then the changes to Mini-XML must be provided
> under the terms of the LGPL2 in sections 1, 2, and 4.
>
>    2. You do not have to provide a copy of the Mini-XML license
> with programs that are linked to the Mini-XML library, nor
> do you have to identify the Mini-XML license in your
> program or documentation as required by section 6 of the
> LGPL2.
>
>
> ^L                GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>                           Version 2, June 1991
>
> [... rest of the LGPLv2 text ...]
>
> I am not sure how to encode this into the _LICENSE field. Luca?

Well, the fallback for fancy licenses is "<package_name> license", as in
"bzip2 license", for example.

But in cases like this, where the license is very similar to a well-known
one, I would prefer something like "LGPLv2+ with exceptions".That is much
more informative, while still clearly stating this not equal to an LGPLv2+.

Luca