xlib_libXv: correct license info
The license is actually closer to ISC than MIT, E.G.: https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC vs https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT >From COPYING: Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Digital or MIT not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. E.G. this is very similar to the normal ISC text which has been extended with a BSD-3c style advertisinc clause. Both are permissive licenses, but it is more correct to call it ISC-like. Notice: As pointed out by Rahul Bedarkar, this may actually be more closely related to the OpenBSD template license: http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD But that is also based on the ISC license, so calling it ISC-like is still correct. Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
0768932a02
commit
aad1591852
|
@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
|
|||
XLIB_LIBXV_VERSION = 1.0.11
|
||||
XLIB_LIBXV_SOURCE = libXv-$(XLIB_LIBXV_VERSION).tar.bz2
|
||||
XLIB_LIBXV_SITE = http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/lib
|
||||
XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE = MIT
|
||||
XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE = ISC-like
|
||||
XLIB_LIBXV_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
|
||||
XLIB_LIBXV_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
|
||||
XLIB_LIBXV_DEPENDENCIES = xlib_libX11 xlib_libXext xproto_videoproto xproto_xproto
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue