[Buildroot] License for patches

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Lars Reemts]

Hi there,

we are using Buildroot in an embedded Linux project for one of our
customers. Discussing with the customer's lawyer the steps required by
the customer in order to conform to the various open-source licenses
involved, the following issue came up:

Buildroot is licensed under the GPL. The packages buildroot builds are
licensed under different licenses. Some of these liceses are
incompatible with the GPL (e.g. the BSD style license of openssl or the
LGPL license of uClibc).

Which license is relevant for the package specific patches distributed
by buildroot? Formally it must be the GPL. But if the patches are
distributed under the GPL, this would result in an unresolvable license
collision for some packages (e.g. openssl). All other patched packages
would be infected by the GPL which would forbid dynamic linking of a
proprietary software with e.g. uClibc.

I'm sure there must be a resolution but I have been unable to convince
the lawyer so far. What can I tell him to make him happy again?

Any ideas?

Best regards

Lars Reemts

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Mike Frysinger]

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.
-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: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20110824/5fd8df2f/attachment.asc>

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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.

The question is what happens when you combine GPL'd source (the
patches) with original source that's not under GPL.  It seems like a
very legitimate question.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Let's send the
                                  at               Russians defective
                              gmail.com            lifestyle accessories!

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Yann E. MORIN]

Lars, Grant, All,

On Wednesday 24 August 2011 18:14:28 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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.
> 
> The question is what happens when you combine GPL'd source (the
> patches) with original source that's not under GPL.  It seems like a
> very legitimate question.

The stance I take with crosstool-NG regarding this, is:
 - crosstool-NG by itself is licensed under the GPLv2
 - the documentation is licensed under CC-BY-SAv2.5
 - patches are available under the same license as the project they apply to
 - a few other licenses here and there (kconfig as GLPv2, etc...)
 - the above does not apply to any file with an associated license (embedded
   in the file, or in an accompanying file)

In my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the same should apply to
buildroot:
 - buildroot by itself (Makefiles, and so on...) is GPLv2+
 - patches are available under the same license as the project they apply to
 - and so...

This would indeed need clarification from the buildroot developpers.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Yann" == Yann E MORIN <yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr> writes:

Hi,

 Yann> In my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the same should apply to
 Yann> buildroot:
 Yann>  - buildroot by itself (Makefiles, and so on...) is GPLv2+
 Yann>  - patches are available under the same license as the project they apply to
 Yann>  - and so...

Indeed. That's the only sensible option.

 Yann> This would indeed need clarification from the buildroot developpers.

I'm fine with it for one.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:14:28 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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.  the patches to packages 
should be under the same license as the packages they patch.

the build system itself (the set of makefiles and such) are under the GPL.
-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: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20110824/02420a05/attachment.asc>

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:14:28 Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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).

> the patches to packages should be under the same license as the
> packages they patch.

I agree that would make the most sense.

> the build system itself (the set of makefiles and such) are under the
> GPL.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Is a tattoo real, like
                                  at               a curb or a battleship?
                              gmail.com            Or are we suffering in
                                                   Safeway?

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 13:38:21 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:14:28 Grant Edwards wrote:
> >> On 2011-08-24, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20110824/3a6c08bc/attachment.asc>

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

Hi,

 >> Seems pretty clear to me: the patches are under the GPL.

 Mike> pretty sure that wasnt generally the intention.  the patches to
 Mike> packages should be under the same license as the packages they
 Mike> patch.

 Mike> the build system itself (the set of makefiles and such) are under
 Mike> the GPL.

That was certainly my intention as well.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Le Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:47:08 +0200,
Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@uclibc.org> a ?crit :

>  Mike> pretty sure that wasnt generally the intention.  the patches to
>  Mike> packages should be under the same license as the packages they
>  Mike> patch.
> 
>  Mike> the build system itself (the set of makefiles and such) are under
>  Mike> the GPL.
> 
> That was certainly my intention as well.

Agreed.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] License for patches

[Robin Holt]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:05:22PM -0400, 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.

Let me preface with, I am neither a lawyer nor a judge and until there
is established precedence in your juristiction, there is no final answer,
but...

Our company lawyers gave us a different read many years ago.  The
modifications to a source base which become part of a final executable
bit of code or machine readable blob (specifically, they were addressing
C# and java code here) must be compatible with the license for the
body of the work into which they were included and, in that use,
are licensed under either that license or a less restrictive license,
as the author/owner sees fit.  The size of changes with respect to the
"operating" part of the code was important in that reading as something
which significantly modifies the "operating" part of the code has more
ability to amend the license terms, whereas a minor patch really does
not carry enough weight to amend a license at all.

With that interpretation, the patch's license, despite being distributed
with the buildroot "tool" would probably follow the license of the
package it is changing and the two together would be considered the
derivative work.  buildroot is merely the tool which allows you to put the
patch together with the source and would not factor into the discussion
beyond that.

Good Luck,
Robin Holt