| Summary: | media-libs/libmng: LICENSE should be "libmng" | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Ulrich Müller <ulm> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Graphics Project <graphics+disabled> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | licenses |
| Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | QAcanfix |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 436214 | ||
| Attachments: | licenses/libmng | ||
Isn't this identical to libpng license? Just has some paragraphs added that contain only descriptive stuff that should probably not be considered as part of the license. It only tells where the code comes from, what it does and what it needs. That's more or less documentation and not license. (In reply to comment #1) > Isn't this identical to libpng license? Just has some paragraphs added that > contain only descriptive stuff that should probably not be considered as > part of the license. It only tells where the code comes from, what it does > and what it needs. That's more or less documentation and not license. What about the infamous UCITA clause in libpng: There is no warranty against interference with your enjoyment of the library or against infringement. There is no warranty that our efforts or the library will fulfill any of your particular purposes or needs. This library is provided with all faults, and the entire risk of satisfactory quality, performance, accuracy, and effort is with the user. If you absolutely want to avoid a new license for libmng, then I'd say that "ZLIB" would be a closer match than "libpng". No, you're right, didn't see that as it was hidden in-between the (c)-lines. In doubt go ahead with its own license file. Fixed. |
Created attachment 332320 [details] licenses/libmng See LICENSE file in tarball. This doesn't match any existing license, therefore I suggest that a new "libmng" license file be created (see attachment). @Licenses team: This looks like a Free Software license to me.