* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] libcgicc: bump to version 3.2.13
2014-03-30 9:30 ` Thomas Petazzoni
@ 2014-03-30 10:22 ` Gustavo Zacarias
2014-03-30 10:27 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-03-30 10:32 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-03-30 13:55 ` Luca Ceresoli
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo Zacarias @ 2014-03-30 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
On 03/30/2014 06:30 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> I've changed this to the more traditional:
>
> LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs)
>
> Though I'm wondering if:
>
> * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL.
>
> * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license,
> since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the
> target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the
> license of their documentation.
>
> Cc'ing Luca and Yann to get an opinion on this.
At this point we nuke docs so +1 from me, i added it because i saw
COPYING.* included it and there was one other package that mentions the
FDL (valgrind).
But yeah, it won't be in staging or target any time soon so +1 about the
second point.
Regards.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] libcgicc: bump to version 3.2.13
2014-03-30 10:22 ` Gustavo Zacarias
@ 2014-03-30 10:27 ` Thomas Petazzoni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2014-03-30 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
Dear Gustavo Zacarias,
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 07:22:43 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote:
> At this point we nuke docs so +1 from me, i added it because i saw
> COPYING.* included it and there was one other package that mentions the
> FDL (valgrind).
> But yeah, it won't be in staging or target any time soon so +1 about the
> second point.
So you can send a patch that removes it? :-)
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] libcgicc: bump to version 3.2.13
2014-03-30 9:30 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-03-30 10:22 ` Gustavo Zacarias
@ 2014-03-30 10:32 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-03-30 13:55 ` Luca Ceresoli
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Yann E. MORIN @ 2014-03-30 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
Thomas, All,
On 2014-03-30 11:30 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 20:19:00 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote:
> > Also add license files and docs license definition.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar>
> > ---
> > package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Applied, thanks, with one minor change.
>
> > +LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+, docs: GFDL1.2+
>
> I've changed this to the more traditional:
>
> LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs)
>
> Though I'm wondering if:
>
> * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL.
For the sake of consistency, yes.i
For the records, however, SPDX does not list any 'or-later' for the GFDL:
http://spdx.org/licenses/
---
GNU Free Documentation License v1.1 GFDL-1.1
GNU Free Documentation License v1.2 GFDL-1.2
GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 GFDL-1.3
GNU General Public License v1.0 only GPL-1.0
GNU General Public License v1.0 or later GPL-1.0+
GNU General Public License v2.0 only GPL-2.0
GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GPL-2.0+
---
But that is valid for an author to specify this 'or later', so OK for
the 'GFDLv1.2+'
> * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license,
> since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the
> target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the
> license of their documentation.
Well, if we're sure there's no installed doc, then we do not need this
in the licensing info. But if in doubt, better let the user check on his
side if the license indeed applies or not.
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. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] libcgicc: bump to version 3.2.13
2014-03-30 9:30 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-03-30 10:22 ` Gustavo Zacarias
2014-03-30 10:32 ` Yann E. MORIN
@ 2014-03-30 13:55 ` Luca Ceresoli
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Luca Ceresoli @ 2014-03-30 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Gustavo Zacarias,
>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 20:19:00 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote:
>> Also add license files and docs license definition.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar>
>> ---
>> package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Applied, thanks, with one minor change.
>
>> +LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+, docs: GFDL1.2+
>
> I've changed this to the more traditional:
>
> LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs)
>
> Though I'm wondering if:
>
> * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL.
Unless there is a good reason, we should the same style for all
licenses.
So, yes, we should use GFDLv1.2+.
Or... We may sync with SPDX: GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1+, BSD-3-Clause, etc.
>
> * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license,
> since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the
> target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the
> license of their documentation.
I'm quite neutral on this point, but I would like at least a comment to
make it clear that whoever added the license info has checked, not just
missed the other license(s).
Example:
# The docs are GFDLv1.2+, but not installed
LIBFOO_LICENSE = LGPLv3+
--
Luca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread