[Buildroot] Is GPLv2 the right license for Buildroot?

[Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@uclibc.org>]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes:

Hi,

 Thomas> So, I believe that we should either:

 Thomas>  (1) Clarify and document how we believe the GPL terms apply to
 Thomas>      Buildroot (this would probably be a long discussion process, in
 Thomas>      which the SFLC should probably participate). When I see the
 Thomas>      discussions around BR2_EXTERNAL where the package .mk files and
 Thomas>      Config.in files may be seen as derivative work, but not the root
 Thomas>      filesystem overlay, or that package .mk files for GPL packages
 Thomas>      should be under the GPL, but not necessarily .mk files for non-GPL
 Thomas>      packages, I believe it is way too complicated for users. To me, it
 Thomas>      seems like complying with the Buildroot license is more
 Thomas>      complicated than using Buildroot itself, which is kind of silly.

We have already tried to clarify it in the user manual:

http://buildroot.net/downloads/manual/manual.html#_complying_with_the_buildroot_license

E.G. Buildroot should be handled just like how you handle the Linux
kernel and Busybox.


 Thomas>  (2) Change the Buildroot license to a non-copyleft license. Of course,
 Thomas>      that requires contacting a lot of people, but maybe not so much:
 Thomas>      over the last 3-4 years, the vast majority of the Buildroot code
 Thomas>      base has been rewritten, and many of the people having worked on
 Thomas>      that are still around today.

It's imho still too many people to be realistic:

git shortlog -s --since='3 years' | wc -l
230


 Thomas> What other build systems are doing:

 Thomas>  * Yocto/OpenEmbeded: bitbake is under GPLv2, the rest (package
 Thomas>    recipes) is under MIT.

 Thomas>  * PTXdist is under GPLv2, but has a small license clarification "Note:
 Thomas>    PTXdist is a build system which generates a distribution for
 Thomas>    embedded systems. This license does only cover the build system
 Thomas>    itself and doesn't affect the license of managed software in any
 Thomas>    way, even if it might be distributed together with the build
 Thomas>    system." I believe it doesn't really clarify completely how the GPL
 Thomas>    applies to a build system.

 Thomas>  * OpenBricks is under GPLv2.

 Thomas>  * OpenWRT is under GPLv2, since it is originally a fork of Buildroot.

 Thomas>  * LTIB is under GPLv2.

So they are basically all in the same boat as us.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard