From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.17]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P8dDa-0008T1-ND for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:17:01 +0200 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [71.255.228.135]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LAL00LIKPEN8UH2@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:16:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2405914AF64; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:15:58 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20101020181558.GN11514@denix.org> References: <1286812675-31626-1-git-send-email-chase.maupin@ti.com> <131E5DFBE7373E4C8D813795A6AA7F080310FFA2BC@dlee06.ent.ti.com> <131E5DFBE7373E4C8D813795A6AA7F080310FFA314@dlee06.ent.ti.com> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <131E5DFBE7373E4C8D813795A6AA7F080310FFA314@dlee06.ent.ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.46.173.17 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: denis@denix.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:17:01 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline 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