From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:26:49 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/3] Support for out-of-tree Buildroot customization In-Reply-To: <20130916173046.GC3293@free.fr> References: <20130911172709.GB3410@free.fr> <20130912202157.536e5904@skate> <20130912203359.7e650ebe@skate> <52323A54.7020808@mind.be> <20130912221256.GE3362@free.fr> <523388B6.7090305@mind.be> <20130914221613.GA3444@free.fr> <20130916173046.GC3293@free.fr> Message-ID: <20130916202649.0a834bad@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann E. MORIN, On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:30:46 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > So, > > from a certain point of view, the *.mk files contain various variables > > and then make a FUNCTION call back into the system. This would negate there > > being a "derived work" for anyone adding on an IP app to the build system. > > I think you are confused by your "IP app" and the "recipes to build your > IP app". By the way, "IP app", or "IP" doesn't mean anything. Why would "Intellectual Property" refer to something that is proprietary/non-free? That doesn't make any sense. Can't we use "proprietary applications", or "private applications" instead? Intellectual property really has nothing to do with whether something is closed-source or open-source. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com