From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:15:49 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 06/21 RFC] package/gcc: add licensing information In-Reply-To: <20151117122826.646069a0@free-electrons.com> References: <20151117122826.646069a0@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20151117211549.GC3703@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Thomas, All, On 2015-11-17 12:28 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:47:01 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > GCC_VERSION = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_GCC_VERSION)) > > +GCC_LICENSE = \ > > + GPLv2+, GPLv3+, LGPLv2.1+ (w/ exception), LGPv3+ (w/ exception), \ > > + BSD-3c, MIT, BSL-1.0 > > What I dislike a bit with this is that we don't clearly differentiate > what goes on the target with what remains on the host. For many > companies, having GPLv3 or LGPLv3 stuff on the target is (unfortunately) > a no-go, so it would be good to make this clearer. > > As per your implementation, such license information will only be part > of the "host packages" license information, while libgcc gets actually > installed in the target. To be honest, I am not entirely sure how to > handle this properly with our package infrastructure. Yes, the current legalese will only apply to the host variant. We could add a target gcc-final that defines the needed legal-info stuff, but installs nothing (like I did so far with the host-gcc package). But I don't like it much either. 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. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'