portmidi: fix build on Big Sur

[mbcoguno]

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing brew install <formula>)?

---

I figure out portmidi is MIT license, its SourceForge project page (https://sourceforge.net/projects/portmedia/) says it's MIT license, but its license file add additional sentence (https://sourceforge.net/p/portmedia/code/HEAD/tree/portmidi/trunk/license.txt) cause it looks like "Artistic-2.0". Right now I choose "MIT".

When building portmidi, it will build its tools that not include in install target. A tool "pmjni" required Java headers, and Big Sur drop JavaVM.framework cause build failure, add a patch to skip related tool to build. This patch should not affect dynamic library.

Also add a simple test.

[SMillerDev]

I figure out portmidi is MIT license, its SourceForge project page (https://sourceforge.net/projects/portmedia/) says it's MIT license, but its license file add additional sentence (https://sourceforge.net/p/portmedia/code/HEAD/tree/portmidi/trunk/license.txt) cause it looks like "Artistic-2.0". Right now I choose "MIT".

Please ask for clarification upstream

[mbcoguno]

Their related project, PortAudio, comes with same license text, and their webpage says "In terms of legal compatibility, the PortAudio licence is now a plain MIT licence". I think portmidi is also MIT license.
Anyway, I send an email to one of the portmidi's contributor about this, I will update if I get reply.

[mbcoguno]

I think we can ignore the extra request to pick it's MIT.

[BrewTestBot]

🤖 A scheduled task has triggered a merge.