[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] portaudio: add license information

[Gilles Talis]

Yann,

2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr>:
> Gilles, Baruch, All,
>
> On 2013-05-23 07:49 -0700, Gilles Talis spake thusly:
>> 2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr>:
>> > Baruch, All,
>> >
>> > On 2013-05-23 10:09 +0300, Baruch Siach spake thusly:
>> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:59:04AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>> > [--SNIP--]
>> >> > This is not really MIT, since there is additional text:
>> >> >
>> >> >  ---8<---
>> >> >  * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however,
>> >> >  * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding
>> >> >  * requests:
>> >> >  *
>> >> >  * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
>> >> >  * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
>> >> >  * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also
>> >> >  * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the
>> >> >  * license above.
>> >> >  ---8<---
>> >> >
>> >> > So I'd say:
>> >> >     PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause)
>> >> >
>> >> > (which by the way makes it non-free software.)
>> >>
>> >> Well, the text you cite says explicitly that these are "non-binding requests".
>> >> Would you still consider this non-free?
>> >
>> > Well, I poundered that, yes. But the way it is phrased is dubious.
>> >
>> > First, it states that it is a non-binding clause. But then the clause
>> > states "[a]ny person [doing changes] is requested to send modifications
>> > [upstream]." The term "requested" is a bit strong for a non-binding
>> > clause.
>> >
>> > So, let me rephrase:
>> >     (which by the way *may* make it non-free software.)
>> >
>> > But the final word should come from a legal counsel, of course. :-)
>> >
>> > Anyway, this is not "MIT" per-se.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Yann E. MORIN.
>>
>> I actually had the same assumption as Baruch. I felt like the
>> "non-binding requests" was the most important information in the text.
>> Anyway, as you say, let's wait for a license expert to give final word
>> on this.
>
> What I meant by "legal counsel" was about the end-user contacting *his*
> legal counsel, not us. We do not have such ressources.
Ooops... all apologies. Misunderstood that.

>> I'll send a patch later when we get confirmation that license type
>> needs to be modified.
>
> My proposal is still to have:
>     PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause)
Yeah, I think you're right. Let me send a new patch.

Thanks
Regards
Gilles.