From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:34:01 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] docs/manual: document format specifying licenses In-Reply-To: <1453361061-13226-1-git-send-email-rahul.bedarkar@imgtec.com> References: <1453361061-13226-1-git-send-email-rahul.bedarkar@imgtec.com> Message-ID: <20160121153401.224d47e5@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Rahul, On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:54:21 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote: > Signed-off-by: Rahul Bedarkar > --- > docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Thanks for working on this! > diff --git a/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt b/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt > index 1c25c4e..460bb87 100644 > --- a/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt > +++ b/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt > @@ -382,7 +382,15 @@ information is (assuming the package name is +libfoo+) : > Otherwise, describe the license in a precise and concise way, avoiding > ambiguous names such as +BSD+ which actually name a family of licenses. > This variable is optional. If it is not defined, +unknown+ will appear in > - the +license+ field of the manifest file for this package. > + the +license+ field of the manifest file for this package. + > + Format for specifying licenses is: We normally use full sentences, so maybe: The expected format for this variable must comply with the following rules: > + ** If the package is released under multiple licenses, then +comma+ separate > + licenses (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1+`+). If there is clear > + distinction between which component is licensed under what license, then > + annotate the license with +libraries+ or +programs+ or +others+ keyword > + (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+ (programs), LGPLv2.1+ (libraries)`+). No: "libraries", "programs" are just examples. We have many more possibilities here, like "docs", "tests" and so on. I don't think we should standardize those categories. We need to standardize: _LICENSE = L1 (A1), L2 (A2), L3 (A3) And the possible values for L1, L2 and L3, but not the possible values for A1, A2 or A3, which vary greatly depending on the packages. > + ** If the package is dual licensed, then separate licenses with +or+ keyword with the +or+ keyword Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com