Re: LICENSE of portaudio (Re: [PATCH] audio/portaudio-devel (Re: wip/fldigi has problem on Mac OS X 10.6.8

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

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.

Joerg