Re: [PATCH 7/8] OECore license fixes: meta/*

[Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>]

On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 08:16 -0700, Flanagan, Elizabeth wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > This (and the corresponding change to busybox) doesn't seem quite right.
> > Although it is true that the bzip2 licence does have four clauses and is
> > approximately BSD-ish, these four clauses are not actually the same as
> > the ones in the traditional 4-clause BSD licence.
> 
> That's correct, thanks for the catch. When I was going through these,
> I relied on a lot on what others had listed the package as. OBS lists
> it as BSD (3 clause I believe). Gentoo lists it as bzip2.
> I dislike having singular licenses but in this case, due to clause 2
> and 3, the correct path here is to change it back to bzip2, add the
> bzip2 text to the license directory and then email the bzip2
> developers and ask them if BSD-4-clause is appropriate or not. I'll do
> that today.

If you're going to ask the maintainers about varying the license
wording, it might be better to ask for BSD-3-Clause rather than the
4-clause one.  Having it licensed under terms which include the
advertising clause would be a bit of a pain.

p.