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.
Attachment:
pgphpwu3XD4sy.pgp
Description: PGP signature