[Buildroot] [PATCH] barebox: fix license information

[Buildroot] [PATCH] barebox: fix license information

[spdawson at gmail.com]

From: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>

The barebox license is GPLv2, and not GPLv2+.

Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
---
 boot/barebox/barebox.mk |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/boot/barebox/barebox.mk b/boot/barebox/barebox.mk
index 3641c1d..9550cdc 100644
--- a/boot/barebox/barebox.mk
+++ b/boot/barebox/barebox.mk
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ BAREBOX_SOURCE = barebox-$(BAREBOX_VERSION).tar.bz2
 BAREBOX_SITE = http://www.barebox.org/download/
 endif
 
-BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2+
+BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2
 BAREBOX_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
 
 ifneq ($(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR)),)
-- 
1.7.9.5

[Buildroot] [PATCH] barebox: fix license information

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Le Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:47:33 +0100,
spdawson at gmail.com a ?crit :

> From: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
> 
> The barebox license is GPLv2, and not GPLv2+.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>

Thanks, applied.

However, the Barebox license, just like U-Boot license, has a special
exception to allow proprietary standalone applications to be linked
against parts of Barebox/U-Boot without having to be released under the
GPL. Should be use "GPLv2 with exceptions"? Or something else?

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

[Buildroot] [PATCH] barebox: fix license information

[Luca Ceresoli]

Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:47:33 +0100,
> spdawson at gmail.com a ?crit :
>
>> From: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
>>
>> The barebox license is GPLv2, and not GPLv2+.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
>
> Thanks, applied.
>
> However, the Barebox license, just like U-Boot license, has a special
> exception to allow proprietary standalone applications to be linked
> against parts of Barebox/U-Boot without having to be released under the
> GPL. Should be use "GPLv2 with exceptions"? Or something else?

Ouch. Well, practically speaking, AFAIK we don't include standalone
Barebox applications in Buildroot, so this a NOOP in our case. If a user
includes such applications in their own copy of Busybox and build it with
Buildroot, then we may kind of assume that user will take care of handling
this case...

But from a formal and "legally-technical" POV, this license has some
exceptions to the original FSF text, so to be safe we should go that way.

I have no strong opinions at this time of the day, but I generally think
that when speaking legal, we should be as safe as possible.
So I'm moderately convinced this is a "GPLv2 with exceptions".

Other opinions are very welcome.

Luca

[Buildroot] [PATCH] barebox: fix license information

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 08/22/12 22:18, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> I have no strong opinions at this time of the day, but I generally think
> that when speaking legal, we should be as safe as possible.
> So I'm moderately convinced this is a "GPLv2 with exceptions".

  I agree.  The legalinfo is should make it easy to find the cases requiring
special attention, and the "GPLv2 with exceptions" tag will flag it that way.

  Regards,
  Arnout
-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                               arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect                 +32-16-286540
Essensium/Mind                                     http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium                BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] [PATCH] barebox: fix license information

[Simon Dawson]

Hi Arnout, Luca, Thomas. Thanks for your help with this.

As suggested, I'll change the license information to "GPLv2 with exceptions".

Simon.