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 1P8dr3-0001CT-FT for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:57:42 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.multimedia-labs.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A853149E89 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:57:07 +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 aLUYaBIEfGNC for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:57:01 +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 8CE253149D70 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:57:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4CBF3B7D.3010904@opendreambox.org> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:57:01 +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> <131E5DFBE7373E4C8D813795A6AA7F080310FFA314@dlee06.ent.ti.com> <20101020181558.GN11514@denix.org> <131E5DFBE7373E4C8D813795A6AA7F0803110B3388@dlee06.ent.ti.com> <20101020183704.GP11514@denix.org> In-Reply-To: <20101020183704.GP11514@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=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 18:57:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/20/2010 08:37 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:27:54PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org >>> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of >>> Denys Dmytriyenko >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:16 PM >>> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org >>> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields >>> >>> 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: >> >> Denys, >> >> The COPYING.EXCEPTION file has the title "AUTOCONF CONFIGURE SCRIPT >> EXCEPTION". Would you like this changed to "GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE"? > > Chase, > > Either "GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE" or even "GPLv3 with Autoconf Configure > Script Exception"... I'm not sure CSE is as common as RLE - here's the > list of current GNU exceptions: GCC and Autoconf both being GNU projects, their license is probably not GPLv3, but GPLv3+ (with some exception), in the discussed notation. ;-) Regards, Andreas