Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:37:25AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:21:23AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> >
>> >> I unpacked the current portaudio-devel, and found LICENSE.txt. It looks
>> >> like a free license, granting the usual permissions. I copied it to a
>> >> file and removed the comment syntax, and then ran wdiff -3 against all
>> >> the existing licenses. The shortest diff (ls -lS), more or less, is to
>> >> /usr/pkgsrc/licenses/mit:
>> >>
>> >> ======================================================================
>> >> [-The MIT License-]{+PortAudio Portable Real-Time Audio Library
>> >> Latest version at: http://www.audiomulch.com/portaudio/
>> >> <platform> Implementation+}
>> >> ======================================================================
>> >> [-<year> <copyright holders>-] {+1999-2000 <author(s)>+}
>> >> ======================================================================
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> {+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.+}
>> >> ======================================================================
>> >>
>> >> So if this is unchanged, it should just get LICENSE=mit.
>> >
>> > No. The above is much stronger than mit and more like the GPL.
>>
>> Are you interpreting "requested" as being the same as "permission to
>> distribute is conditional on this"? It's a very different word, and it
>> seems clear that it is phrased separately as a request, separate from
>> the grant of permissions.
>
> Yes, I am. But I am not a native speaker either.
OK - but it's not so much a native English thing as a
way-too-many-hours-reading-licenses-and-talking-to-lawyers thing, though
:-)
Attachment:
pgpfYdY7Oybs2.pgp
Description: PGP signature