Re: esdl-license?

[Taylor R Campbell <riastradh%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 07:17:06 -0500
> From: Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>
> 
> Why is it call esdl?   That to me seems to come out of nowhere.

I searched the web for `esdl "Dan Gudmundsson"' and this came up:

https://github.com/dgud/esdl/blob/dbd8ce9228aa36828091df2e8706c364094a3e22/license.terms

`esdl' is an SDL wrapper for Erlang, which appears to be now obsolete.

reinoud imported esdl-license back in 2015 with no commentary -- and
no usage until November when adam applied it to libsmi:

https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-changes/2015/04/24/msg123149.html
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-changes/2015/11/06/msg132040.html

> > (There is some extra language in esdl-license not appearing at
> > https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/COPYING.html?lang=de, and
> > a 3-clause-bsd that does appear in there, so maybe these should be
> > tweaked a little bit to separate the paragraphs, and the four cases
> > in-tree updated to reflect this adjustment, but that's a minor issue
> > past the main question here.)
> 
> I think fixing the ocnfusion is as important.
> 
> In this case:
> 
> * GOVERNMENT USE
> 
> This section doesn't belong, [...]
> 
> * libsmi COPYING
> 
> My interpretation is that libsmi includes code under the license we call
> esdl, and also under the second license.   The second license is
> modified-bsd, differing only in university/regents => institute.
> 
> So we should not add modified-bsd into esdl but instead mark the package
> esdl AND modified-bsd.

Yes, that's what I meant -- mark libsmi `esdl AND modified-bsd', and
apply `esdl' to the other packages that have the same text (minus the
government use section).  Except I hadn't done the full word diff to
find that the language varies a little bit in the other packages, ugh.

Didn't want to go down this rabbit hole.  All I really wanted was for
the net/wireshark build to not get stuck on an unacceptable licence!