From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 2/2] docs/manual: add section about patch licensing
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:08:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56D0CCD2.7040201@lucaceresoli.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160225201602.GC5870@free.fr>
Dear Yann,
On 25/02/2016 21:16, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Luca, All,
>
> On 2016-02-25 12:51 +0100, Luca Ceresoli spake thusly:
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>> Cc: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
>> Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
>> Cc: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
>> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
>> Cc: Steve Calfee <stevecalfee@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Note: although there are only wording improvements since v2, I did not
>> carry the Acked-by from Thomas and Arnout because the topic is
>> delicate and Yann explicitly nacked the patch.
>
> IIRC, I NAKed it because, in case of proprietary packages, the patches
> can only be available under the FLOSS license of the package they are
> applied to.
Yup. I hurried to resend the previous patch (affecting COPYING) and
didn't quite address your comments on this one. Sorry about that, I did
it just now.
>
> [--SNIP--]
>> +==== Patches to packages
>> +
>> +Buildroot is bundled with a set of patches that are applied to
>> +packages to fix cross-compilation or other issues. See
>> +xref:patch-policy[] for the technical details.
>> +
>> +These patches are effectively a derived work of the package they are
>> +applied to, and so they are released under the same license as the
>> +software they apply to. They are not distributed under the Buildroot
>> +license.
>
> Why not repeat the same sentence as the one from the previous patch?
Because this is the manual, and I wanted it to be less legalese and more
humanese/hackerese... and I felt like explaining the reason ("patches
are effectively a derived work...").
But your suggestion is quite good, and it definitely ensures the manual
doesn't contradict COPYING! :) And actually they mostly state the same
things, only in a different order and with different wording.
Unless others suggest differently, I'll take your suggestion for v4.
--
Luca
--
Luca
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-26 22:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-25 11:51 [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 0/2] Patch file clarification & Co Luca Ceresoli
2016-02-25 11:51 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/2] COPYING: add exception about patch licensing Luca Ceresoli
2016-02-25 12:40 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-02-25 19:42 ` Yann E. MORIN
2016-02-26 18:51 ` Peter Korsgaard
2016-02-25 11:51 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 2/2] docs/manual: add section " Luca Ceresoli
2016-02-25 20:16 ` Yann E. MORIN
2016-02-26 22:08 ` Luca Ceresoli [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56D0CCD2.7040201@lucaceresoli.net \
--to=luca@lucaceresoli.net \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox