Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 19:00:48 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 198510] x11-toolkits/wxgtk30 [MAINTAINER update] adds LICENSE Message-ID: <bug-198510-13-FdbyJVobkk@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-198510-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-198510-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198510 --- Comment #5 from Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> --- (In reply to Thomas Zander from comment #4) > (In reply to Chris Hutchinson from comment #3) > > My knowledge on licenses is far from expert-like, I just quickly scanned the > preamble of the wxWidgets license in the tarball (the URL you provided is of > identical content), and spotted these two paragraphs (excerpts): > > [...] > wxWidgets is currently licenced under the "wxWindows Library Licence" > pending approval of the "wxWidgets Library Licence" which will be identical > apart from the name. > The wxWindows Library Licence is essentially the L-GPL (Library General > Public Licence), with an exception stating that derived works in binary form > may be distributed on the user's own terms. This is a solution that > satisfies those who wish to produce GPL'ed software using wxWidgets, and > also those producing proprietary software. > [...] > > [...] > Most files are distributed under the GNU Library General Public License, > version 2, with the special exception that you may create and distribute > object code versions built from the source code or modified versions of it > (even if these modified versions include code under a different licence), > and distribute such binaries under your own terms. > [...] > > Since they say "most files" have this exception, there may be code included > that is licensed differently, e.g. GPLv2 without this exception which could > have consequences with regard to derivative works. > I did not check for this, so I am not totally sure whether we need > LICENSE_COMB or not. > You maintain the port and know the project better than I do. If you are > comfortable with the single LICENSE clause, it may be okay. > > On the other open question: Why can't we use the preamble from the docs/ dir > in the tarball instead of placing the license manually into FILESDIR? Hello, Thomas, I'm not an attorney either. :-) I'm [now] also inclined to lean toward LICENSE_COMBO. I'll have to re-examine Mk/bsd.licenses.db again. But [as to LICENSE_COMBO] I don't think it includes wxWidgets. So I'll probably need to modify this, to better suit it's intention. Thanks for all your time on this, Thomas. --Chris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-198510-13-FdbyJVobkk>