On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 08:16 -0700, Flanagan, Elizabeth wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This (and the corresponding change to busybox) doesn't seem quite right. > > Although it is true that the bzip2 licence does have four clauses and is > > approximately BSD-ish, these four clauses are not actually the same as > > the ones in the traditional 4-clause BSD licence. > > That's correct, thanks for the catch. When I was going through these, > I relied on a lot on what others had listed the package as. OBS lists > it as BSD (3 clause I believe). Gentoo lists it as bzip2. > I dislike having singular licenses but in this case, due to clause 2 > and 3, the correct path here is to change it back to bzip2, add the > bzip2 text to the license directory and then email the bzip2 > developers and ask them if BSD-4-clause is appropriate or not. I'll do > that today.
If you're going to ask the maintainers about varying the license wording, it might be better to ask for BSD-3-Clause rather than the 4-clause one. Having it licensed under terms which include the advertising clause would be a bit of a pain. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
