From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:50:23 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 50/53] udpcast: add license information In-Reply-To: <53B339ED.6030905@zacarias.com.ar> (Gustavo Zacarias's message of "Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:45:01 -0300") References: <1403810481-10025-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <1403810481-10025-50-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <874mz0em4e.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <53B339ED.6030905@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <87r424ci80.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Gustavo" == Gustavo Zacarias writes: > On 07/01/2014 07:43 PM, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >> fec.c::fec_license() lists it as GPLv2+, so I've fixed that and >> committed, thanks. > Careful there, look at COPYING. Yes, it's not really clear. From COPYING: The bulk of the code (everything except fec.c) is covered by the GPL 2.0 licence (See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt) Fec.c is covered by a BSD-like licence >From fec_licence() (which gets printed to the user when they request the license details of the udpcast utilities): " udpcast and its FEC code are free software\n" "\n" " you can redistribute udpcast core functionality and/or\n" " it them under the terms of the GNU General Public License as\n" " published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of\n" " the License, or (at your option) any later version.\n" ... "the FEC code is covered by the following license:\n" "fec.c -- forward error correction based on Vandermonde matrices\n" So the question is if the license should be BSD-2c (fec.c), GPLv2+ (rest) or BSD-2c (fec.c), GPLv2 (rest) Sticking to GPLv2 is safest, but I say the license info that gets printed to the user is more "important" than what a source file says. Comments? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard