From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael S. Zick Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:30:00 -0500 Subject: [Buildroot] Report from the Buildroot Developer Day In-Reply-To: <4EB3D2F1.3010206@comelit.it> References: <20111102160349.4afe5935@skate> <4EB3D2F1.3010206@comelit.it> Message-ID: <201111040730.03581.minimod@morethan.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Fri November 4 2011, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Buildroot Developer Day - ELCE 2011 > > =================================== > > Thomas, thanks a lot for your detailed and timely report! > > > Licensing report generation > > --------------------------- > > ... > > It is also not clear yet what the output of this report should be. On > > one side, Thomas Petazzoni proposed that it generates an HTML document > > inside a directory with all the tarballs and all the patches for the > > different components. On the other side, Peter Korsgaard proposed that > > a report be generated, but only with a list of tarballs, leaving the > > user the work of putting the tarballs together. For Peter, there is no > > I can't see any drawback of having Buildroot put together the tarballs. > It's boring for a man, and I suppose it would be easy to implement in > Buildroot. > > > need to worry about the patches, since releasing Buildroot as a whole > > is sufficient to provide all the patches. Thomas, however, wasn't sure > > if releasing the Buildroot environment itself was acceptable for all > > Buildroot users as the Buildroot configuration gives quite some > > details on the system configuration. This remains to be discussed. > > I think this would be illegal, at least according to the GPLv2: > > "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source > code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface > definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and > installation of the executable." > My favorite quote from the GPLv2 - > My understanding is that Buildroot is exactly "the scripts used to > control compilation and installation", so the patches that exist in > Buildroot should be released as well. > Which says nothing at all about the values assigned to any script variables; I.E: The .config file contents. __Unless__ the "associated interface definition files" is stretched in its common meaning (for example, header files) to include the interface between the build system and the user (.config settings). I do not build software for others, so I have never had to make a decision on the above (or hire a legal decision). But I have seen enough "complete" source code releases to know that Thomas is not alone in considering the setting of the content values in the .config files to be proprietary. Mike > Luca > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot > >