X.org licenses

X.org licenses

[Phil Blundell]

This morning it came to my notice that libxdmcp, and a bunch of other
files (mostly, though not exclusively, in xorg-libs) contain things
like:

LICENSE = "MIT-style"

It's not very clear to me whether "MIT-style" is meant to mean "an
unspecified license in the same general style as the MIT one" or whether
it refers to a single concrete license.  (There is no MIT-style in
meta/files/common-licenses.)

Does anybody happen to know what the intended meaning of this license
is?

thanks

p.

Re: X.org licenses

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1097 bytes --]

On 16 March 2016 at 12:29, Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net> wrote:

> This morning it came to my notice that libxdmcp, and a bunch of other
> files (mostly, though not exclusively, in xorg-libs) contain things
> like:
>
> LICENSE = "MIT-style"
>
> It's not very clear to me whether "MIT-style" is meant to mean "an
> unspecified license in the same general style as the MIT one" or whether
> it refers to a single concrete license.  (There is no MIT-style in
> meta/files/common-licenses.)
>
> Does anybody happen to know what the intended meaning of this license
> is?
>

So the license class has a mapping to let people use a variety of different
strings to mean the same actual license.  For example all the variations of
GPLv2 (GPL-2, GPLv2, GPLv2.0) all map to the SPDX canonical name of GPL-2.0.

Ditto, MIT-style and MIT-X all map to MIT.

Considering xorg-lib-common.inc already sets LICENSE="MIT-X" and these
recipes are overriding that assignment, we should probably remove all
instances of MIT-style from the xorg recipes as they should probably be
MIT-X.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1683 bytes --]

Re: X.org licenses

[Phil Blundell]

On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 12:59 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Ditto, MIT-style and MIT-X all map to MIT.
> 
> Considering xorg-lib-common.inc already sets LICENSE="MIT-X" and these
> recipes are overriding that assignment, we should probably remove all
> instances of MIT-style from the xorg recipes as they should probably
> be MIT-X.

Yeah, that seems reasonable.  A particularly weird thing is that some of
the recipes are setting LICENSE = "MIT && MIT-style", which seems bogus
if they are in fact the same thing.

p.

Re: X.org licenses

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 352 bytes --]

On 16 March 2016 at 13:02, Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net> wrote:

> Yeah, that seems reasonable.  A particularly weird thing is that some of
> the recipes are setting LICENSE = "MIT && MIT-style", which seems bogus
> if they are in fact the same thing.
>

That's just to make sure that it's really MIT licensed...

Can you send a patch?

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 839 bytes --]