Re: [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 02:53:59PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > 
> > I'm not sure if it is a policy. Haven't seen it being pulished as such.
> > Having said that, I have no problems with it (although there is no
> > problem with enforcing patents or so for v2+ , as that still falls
> > under the v2 umbrella).
> > 
> > I guess most of our recipes that say GPLv2 are wrong and are v2+.
> > It might be hard to distinguish between these though, it could well be
> > that the license file says v2 and a comment in the code says v2+.
> > Glad I do not have to deal with this any more....
> 
> Frans,
> 
> That is exactly the issue that is so annoying.  The COPYING file usually 
> says the standard GPLv2, but if you go and read the license text in the code 
> that is where it says GPLv2 (or later) so GPLv2+.  This patch was modified 
> to go off the license in the code since that is more likely what the 
> developer actually intended and not an auto-generated file.
> 
> Koen,
> 
> What about GPLv3 licensed files with an exception?  Right now I have that as 
> GPLv3+exception.  Was there ever any discussion about how to handle these?  
> I am trying to indicate that it is not a standard GPLv3 license.

Chase,

Does it say what kind of exception it is? If it has a name, it's better to 
specify it. For libgcc/libstdc++ I ended up specifying "GPLv3 with GCC RLE", 
which stands for GCC Runtime Library Exception:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html

-- 
Denys