From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:21:01 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Is GPLv2 the right license for Buildroot? In-Reply-To: <20130914221613.GA3444@free.fr> References: <20130911091700.0b24df41@skate> <20130911172709.GB3410@free.fr> <20130912202157.536e5904@skate> <20130912203359.7e650ebe@skate> <52323A54.7020808@mind.be> <20130912221256.GE3362@free.fr> <523388B6.7090305@mind.be> <20130914221613.GA3444@free.fr> Message-ID: <20130916182101.3844a686@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:16:13 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Since Buildroot's license is the GPLv2, BR2_EXTERNAL is covered by the > GPLv2. Probably going to make waves, but I'm wondering if the GPLv2 is the right license for Buildroot. I believe it is not very easy to understand how the terms of the GPL apply to something such as a build system, and I am not sure that the GPL copyleft requirements are really benefiting to Buildroot in any way. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of companies using Buildroot are not really realizing it's licensed under the GPL and therefore are not complying with the Buildroot license terms (while they probably do realize that the kernel, U-Boot, etc. are under the GPL and comply with their terms). Of course that's not an argument to change the license, but I believe it also highlights how hard it is to understand the GPL requirements on the Buildroot case. So, I believe that we should either: (1) Clarify and document how we believe the GPL terms apply to Buildroot (this would probably be a long discussion process, in which the SFLC should probably participate). When I see the discussions around BR2_EXTERNAL where the package .mk files and Config.in files may be seen as derivative work, but not the root filesystem overlay, or that package .mk files for GPL packages should be under the GPL, but not necessarily .mk files for non-GPL packages, I believe it is way too complicated for users. To me, it seems like complying with the Buildroot license is more complicated than using Buildroot itself, which is kind of silly. (2) Change the Buildroot license to a non-copyleft license. Of course, that requires contacting a lot of people, but maybe not so much: over the last 3-4 years, the vast majority of the Buildroot code base has been rewritten, and many of the people having worked on that are still around today. Thoughts? What other build systems are doing: * Yocto/OpenEmbeded: bitbake is under GPLv2, the rest (package recipes) is under MIT. * PTXdist is under GPLv2, but has a small license clarification "Note: PTXdist is a build system which generates a distribution for embedded systems. This license does only cover the build system itself and doesn't affect the license of managed software in any way, even if it might be distributed together with the build system." I believe it doesn't really clarify completely how the GPL applies to a build system. * OpenBricks is under GPLv2. * OpenWRT is under GPLv2, since it is originally a fork of Buildroot. * LTIB is under GPLv2. Any other build system around worth having a look at? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com