From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:08:18 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 2/2] docs/manual: add section about patch licensing In-Reply-To: <20160225201602.GC5870@free.fr> References: <1456401075-16948-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <1456401075-16948-3-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <20160225201602.GC5870@free.fr> Message-ID: <56D0CCD2.7040201@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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 >> Cc: "Yann E. MORIN" >> Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) >> Cc: Peter Korsgaard >> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni >> Cc: Steve Calfee >> >> --- >> >> 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