Re: oe-core license description practices

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

Quick research.. Debian calls this GPLv2+... but I can find no corresponding 
evidence to what was quoted in the Debian copyright file.

What I did find was the quoted piece from the _mysql.c:

> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> any later version. Alternatively, you may use the original license
> reproduced below.
>
> Copyright 1999 by Comstar.net, Inc., Atlanta, GA, US.
>
>                         All Rights Reserved
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
> provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
> both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
> supporting documentation, and that the name of Comstar.net, Inc.
> or COMSTAR not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
> distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission.
>
> COMSTAR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE,
> INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO
> EVENT SHALL COMSTAR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF
> USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR
> OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
> PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

and the comment in the README file:

> License
> -------
>
> GPL or the original license based on Python 1.5.2's license.
>
>
> :Author: Andy Dustman <andy@dustman.net>
> :Revision: $Id: README 641 2010-02-25 21:28:13Z kylev $

Based on the above, I'd call it GPLv2+ due to the one file having a specific 
license statement, and a compatible but nebulous license statement in the 
README.  I found no other license statements anywhere in the package.

--Mark

On 1/15/12 10:22 AM, Peter Bigot wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Chris Larson<clarson@kergoth.com>  wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Peter Bigot<bigotp@acm.org>  wrote:
>>> http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/OpenEmbedded-Core states that the
>>> LICENSE field should be "as correct as possible (e.g. 'GPLv2', not
>>> just 'GPL')".  If the upstream package self-describes as "GPL", is it
>>> necessary that this be refined to a more specific version?
>>
>> Generally they may say they're GPL, but are actually GPLv2+ or
>> similar. Read the actual license text included in the source tree, and
>> the headers of the files.
>
> I have done that.  Please see the material I quoted below my question,
> and let me know how to proceed based on my description of what I found
> in the package.  Perhaps I'm being too careful, but I didn't find it
> clear enough to warrant unilaterally re-characterizing the licensing.
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
>
>> --
>> Christopher Larson
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel