From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RmTR1-0002Xi-QB for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0100 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0FGqNPj010322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from Macintosh-5.local (172.25.36.233) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:52:23 -0800 Message-ID: <4F130446.5060203@windriver.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:52:22 -0600 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: oe-core license description practices 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: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:00:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 > :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 wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Peter Bigot 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