From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:28:33 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 4/5] docs/manual: add section about patch licensing In-Reply-To: <56D0CCDB.9020302@lucaceresoli.net> References: <1454365196-26319-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <1454365196-26319-5-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <20160203233430.GC3428@free.fr> <56D0CCDB.9020302@lucaceresoli.net> Message-ID: <20160226222833.GA3437@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Luca, All, On 2016-02-26 23:08 +0100, Luca Ceresoli spake thusly: > On 04/02/2016 00:34, Yann E. MORIN wrote: [...] > > So, we still have the problem of patches that are applied to packages > > that can be had under a non-public license, like e.g. Qt, polarssl... > > for which there exists a proprietary alternative? > > > > In my opinion, the patches we carry are only available under the FLOSS > > license we can get them: > > > > - if we cherry-picked them from upstream, then the only license we > > ever had for those patches is the FLOSS license, not the proprietary > > one; so they can't be applied to the proprietary version of the > > package (but a licensee may get those patches from the licensor, and > > replace our patches with the ones it got from the licensor); > > > > - if we wrote them, the only solution we have is to make them public > > domain, or they could not be applied either (we don't know the > > licensing terms for that proprietary version, so we can't license > > them under those terms); > > Why can't we license these patches under the FLOSS license they are > publicly available under? Ah, my bad, I was not clear. What I meant with that second point wa that, *if* we wanted to make those patches available for the non-FLOSS license, then we'd have had to license them in a very liberal way, and the only real possibility would have been public domain, as any other license, hoever permissive it may be, could clash with the proprietary license. Now, I am absolutely *not* advocating for that. In fact, I've always been, and will always be, advocating for the patches to be made available under the _publicly available_ FLOSS license of the package they are applied to, which is the conclusion we came to, and which we wrote in COPYING (and soon in the manual). > Of course this implies "they can't be applied > to the proprietary version of the package", just like you state in the > first case. This is a limitation, but I think it is legal. Don't you > think so? 1- I think it is perfectly legit, yes. 2- I do not see that as a limitation, no. 3- I am 100% fine with that! ;-) > > - if we got them from somewhere else (e.g. openwrt, gentoo, > > alpine...), then we'd have to get the licensing terms from those > > providers, and I guess most of them either don't know (most > > probable) or would only provide them under the usual FLOSS license > > of that package (not knowing better than us in points 1 and 2 above). > > > > So, this situation is really complex, and we can't deal with that in > > such a simple way. > > > >> They are not distributed under the Buildroot license. > > > > Well, what of a patch to a GPLv2 package? It is the same license as > > Buidlroot's license... What I mean, is that some patches might be > > covered by the same licensing terms, but that it's not because of > > Buildroot, but because of the package they are applied to. I'd like we > > make that clearer... > > Aaaah, yes, you're right... Well, I guess we all got what I meant, but > indeed I wrote something ambiguous. :( Yes, I did get your meaning, of course! ;-) But legalese stuff is suffficiently complex that we have to be as clear as possible when we write such stuff. In the end, I think we pretty much covered all the bases with that blurb we've added now, no? Thank you for working on this topic! :-) 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. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'