Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 18:27:18 +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-xtibVx4KoC@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 #4 from Thomas Zander <riggs@FreeBSD.org> --- (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? -- 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-xtibVx4KoC>