From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv2 1/2] getent: new package In-Reply-To: References: <1408355649-28891-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1408355649-28891-2-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20140818165248.393a57db@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:50:57 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > How do you conclude this license? uclibc: there is no license specific in the script itself, so by default it's the same license as the entire project, i.e LGPLv2.1+ glibc: the header comment in nss/getent.c is clear: it's under LGPLv2.1+. > Isn't this dependent on the case glibc versus uclibc/musl ? Or do each > of these use the same license? See above :) > Also, shouldn't we specify GETENT_LICENSE_FILES and make sure the > appropriate license text is present? Which license text file should be used? In neither of the uclibc/musl or glibc cases we have access to the license text. I can include a COPYING file in package/getent/, but that's going to be 100x times larger than the getent script :) Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com