From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:16:34 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v6 0/2] Mono new package In-Reply-To: <20141025105055.05c53953@free-electrons.com> References: <1414009330-4433-1-git-send-email-angelo.compagnucci@gmail.com> <20141025105055.05c53953@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <544EC442.5030804@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas, Angelo, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Angelo Compagnucci, > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:22:08 +0200, Angelo Compagnucci wrote: > >> Angelo Compagnucci (2): >> package/monolite: new package >> package/mono: new package > > Thanks, both patches applied. On the second patch, there was a missing > dependency of host-mono on host-gettext (which you didn't see probably > because you have gettext installed on your machine). I also did some > improvements to the licensing description, even though some independent > review of this (Yann, Luca ?) would be good. I don't use Mono and it's a fairly large package. I just gave it a quick look, and it looks like it has a _very_ complex licensing scheme... The file LICENSE is there to clarify the licensing. The need to have such a file is itself quite enlightening on how arcane the thing is. And around the middle of the file I got a headache and gave up. According to their website [1], the tools are released under the GPL (no version specified). But in the tools/ subdirectory there is no mention of GPL, only a BSD license. Overall, if it were me, and if I were forced to use Mono at all, I'd state: MONO_LICENSE = A fuzzy mix of LGPL (any version), MIT/X11 and \ others, or commercial BTW, Angelo, Thomas, where did you get licensing info when writing/committing the package? [1] http://www.mono-project.com/docs/faq/licensing/ -- Luca