From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.multimedia-labs.de ([82.149.226.172]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P8dju-00010Z-GN for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:50:19 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.multimedia-labs.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29CFC3149ED0 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:49:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.multimedia-labs.de Received: from mail.multimedia-labs.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.multimedia-labs.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id rA4NIrsSoEn9 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:49:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.22.22.60] (ip-109-90-189-193.unitymediagroup.de [109.90.189.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.multimedia-labs.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E43EC3149EA0 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:49:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4CBF39BF.9000809@opendreambox.org> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:49:35 +0200 From: Andreas Oberritter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <1286812675-31626-1-git-send-email-chase.maupin@ti.com> <131E5DFBE7373E4C8D813795A6AA7F080310FFA2BC@dlee06.ent.ti.com> <20101020182509.GO11514@denix.org> In-Reply-To: <20101020182509.GO11514@denix.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 82.149.226.172 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: obi@opendreambox.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,SPF_PASS 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 18:50:19 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/20/2010 08:25 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > In OE we've been using this term for some time now. Although, still too many > old recipes use old notations, sometimes even as generic as just plain "GPL" > w/o specifying the exact version. It wasn't as critical before, but these days > OE is being adopted in corporate environments and proper licensing became > quite important. How exactly do "GPLv2" and "GPLv2+" differ from a corporate point of view? Can you imagine any company forking a GPLv2+-licensed project to distribute it under the terms of a later version of the license? Is there any case where someone would say "Hey, we can't use this package, because it's GPLv2. We need it to be v3 or later"? The opposite seems to be a common case instead. I'm asking, because I don't think it's worth the time to verify all packages in such detail, i.e. looking at all source files and guessing what the original author intended to choose, if there are files called COPYING or LICENSE in the root folder of a package. The only case where it's important whether v2 or v2+ is in use is if you want to stop using v2. IMO, if someone wants to do that, he should do the research himself. It isn't important for a distribution. Regards, Andreas