From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:12:55 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Is GPLv2 the right license for Buildroot? In-Reply-To: <20130916182101.3844a686@skate> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:21:01 +0200") References: <20130911091700.0b24df41@skate> <20130911172709.GB3410@free.fr> <20130912202157.536e5904@skate> <20130912203359.7e650ebe@skate> <52323A54.7020808@mind.be> <20130912221256.GE3362@free.fr> <523388B6.7090305@mind.be> <20130914221613.GA3444@free.fr> <20130916182101.3844a686@skate> Message-ID: <87vc20fp2g.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: Hi, Thomas> So, I believe that we should either: Thomas> (1) Clarify and document how we believe the GPL terms apply to Thomas> Buildroot (this would probably be a long discussion process, in Thomas> which the SFLC should probably participate). When I see the Thomas> discussions around BR2_EXTERNAL where the package .mk files and Thomas> Config.in files may be seen as derivative work, but not the root Thomas> filesystem overlay, or that package .mk files for GPL packages Thomas> should be under the GPL, but not necessarily .mk files for non-GPL Thomas> packages, I believe it is way too complicated for users. To me, it Thomas> seems like complying with the Buildroot license is more Thomas> complicated than using Buildroot itself, which is kind of silly. We have already tried to clarify it in the user manual: http://buildroot.net/downloads/manual/manual.html#_complying_with_the_buildroot_license E.G. Buildroot should be handled just like how you handle the Linux kernel and Busybox. Thomas> (2) Change the Buildroot license to a non-copyleft license. Of course, Thomas> that requires contacting a lot of people, but maybe not so much: Thomas> over the last 3-4 years, the vast majority of the Buildroot code Thomas> base has been rewritten, and many of the people having worked on Thomas> that are still around today. It's imho still too many people to be realistic: git shortlog -s --since='3 years' | wc -l 230 Thomas> What other build systems are doing: Thomas> * Yocto/OpenEmbeded: bitbake is under GPLv2, the rest (package Thomas> recipes) is under MIT. Thomas> * PTXdist is under GPLv2, but has a small license clarification "Note: Thomas> PTXdist is a build system which generates a distribution for Thomas> embedded systems. This license does only cover the build system Thomas> itself and doesn't affect the license of managed software in any Thomas> way, even if it might be distributed together with the build Thomas> system." I believe it doesn't really clarify completely how the GPL Thomas> applies to a build system. Thomas> * OpenBricks is under GPLv2. Thomas> * OpenWRT is under GPLv2, since it is originally a fork of Buildroot. Thomas> * LTIB is under GPLv2. So they are basically all in the same boat as us. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard