[Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/2] package/physfs: new package

[Romain Naour]

Hi Arnout, Thomas, All,

Le 06/03/2017 à 00:31, Arnout Vandecappelle a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 05-03-17 23:13, Romain Naour wrote:
>> Hi Arnout, all,
>>
>> Le 05/03/2017 à 23:06, Arnout Vandecappelle a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05-03-17 22:37, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 22:14:02 +0100, Romain Naour wrote:
>>>>>> zlib license (physfs), LGPv2.1+ or CPL or special license (lzma)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ?  
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems some files are under public domain when the special license is used.
>>>>>
>>>>> SPECIAL EXCEPTION #3: Igor Pavlov, as the author of this code, expressly permits
>>>>> you to use code of the following files:
>>>>> BranchTypes.h, LzmaTypes.h, LzmaTest.c, LzmaStateTest.c, LzmaAlone.cpp,
>>>>> LzmaAlone.cs, LzmaAlone.java
>>>>> as public domain code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe "special license" is enough ?
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of lzma.txt is that you really have the choice between
>>>> those different licensing options, so I believe encoding all of them in
>>>> <pkg>_LICENSE is probably better.
>>>>
>>>> Cc'ing Arnout and Yann to get their insight.
>>>
>>>  I was just about to reply :-)
>>>
>>>  First of all, I don't see any 'or later' language, so it's LGPL2.1 (the version
>>> mentioned in src/lzma/LGPL.txt).
>>
>> Try with "any later version"
> 
>  Still don't see it, except in LGPL.txt where they explain that the library
> should specify "any later version" if they want it to apply to a later version.

Sorry but I don't see how to make the difference between LGPL2.1 and LGPL2.1+.

I compared the license file of tree LGPL2.1+ packages (alsa-lib, cairo, sdl)
with src/lzma/LGPL.txt and the content is the same.

Ether alsa-lib, cairo, sdl license info are wrong or physfs is really LGPL2.1+ :)

Best regards,
Romain

> 
>  Regards,
>  Arnout