From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:08:06 -0400 Subject: [Buildroot] License for patches In-Reply-To: References: <4E5517E0.30003@finalbit.de> <201108241313.13007.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <201108241408.07081.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 13:38:21 Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:14:28 Grant Edwards wrote: > >> On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:25:20 Lars Reemts wrote: > >>>> Which license is relevant for the package specific patches > >>>> distributed by buildroot? Formally it must be the GPL. > >>> > >>> says who? i dont see the logic here. > >> > >> According to http://buildroot.uclibc.org/: > >> Buildroot is a set of Makefiles and patches [....] > >> > >> Buildroot is [...] licensed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE V2 > >> (Or later). > >> > >> Seems pretty clear to me: the patches are under the GPL. > > > > pretty sure that wasnt generally the intention. > > Possibly not, but I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of > the statement on the web page. There doesn't seem to be anything in > the buildroot tarball to indicate any licensing other than GPL v2 (a > copy of which is included in the tarball). send a patch so Peter can merge it ;) -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: