[PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[Armin Kuster]

adding the license definitions on the few packages that
deviate from the overall package license.

based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
and spot checking files.

Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
---
 meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
@@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
 HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
 SECTION = "libs"
 LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"
+
+LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
+LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
+
+# both public and GPL license listed
+LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
+LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
+
+
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
                     file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
                     file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
-- 
2.3.5

Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[Jussi Kukkonen]

Hi,

I realise I'm a bit late (with the commit in master already) but I'm
looking at upgrading this recipe and had some questions on this patch
and the recipe in general.

On 9 August 2015 at 08:28, Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> adding the license definitions on the few packages that
> deviate from the overall package license.
>
> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
> and spot checking files.
>
> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
> ---
>  meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
>  HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
>  SECTION = "libs"
>  LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"

I think this is wrong, whichever version you look at -- our current
version is just "LGPLv2.1+", the current upstream release is "LGPLv3+
| GPLv2+"

I'm going to send a patch upgrading the recipe to the current upstream
release (and setting license to "LGPLv3+ | GPLv2+"): it might seem
like this makes gnutls effectively LGPLv3 but that actually happened
last year with the gmp upgrade. Comments on this welcome.


> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
> +
> +# both public and GPL license listed
> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"

From the reference I had the impression this "LICENSE_something"
construct would imply there is a package "something". But the nettle
recipe does not produce "nettle-cast" or any of these. What is the
purpose here?

Thanks,
 Jussi

> +
> +
>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
>                      file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
>                      file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
> --
> 2.3.5
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[akuster808]

On 08/12/2015 07:14 AM, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I realise I'm a bit late (with the commit in master already) but I'm
> looking at upgrading this recipe and had some questions on this patch
> and the recipe in general.
>
> On 9 August 2015 at 08:28, Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
>> adding the license definitions on the few packages that
>> deviate from the overall package license.
>>
>> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
>> and spot checking files.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
>>   HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
>>   SECTION = "libs"
>>   LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"
>
> I think this is wrong, whichever version you look at -- our current
> version is just "LGPLv2.1+", the current upstream release is "LGPLv3+
> | GPLv2+"
>
> I'm going to send a patch upgrading the recipe to the current upstream
> release (and setting license to "LGPLv3+ | GPLv2+"): it might seem
> like this makes gnutls effectively LGPLv3 but that actually happened
> last year with the gmp upgrade. Comments on this welcome.

I believe that conversation should be in the mailing list archive.

For me LGPLv2+ makes is all version above GPL2, but since I am not a 
lawyer it makes not sense on how to play that game. So I decided to drop 
pressuring the update.

- Armin


>
>> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
>> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
>> +
>> +# both public and GPL license listed
>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
>
>  From the reference I had the impression this "LICENSE_something"
> construct would imply there is a package "something". But the nettle
> recipe does not produce "nettle-cast" or any of these. What is the
> purpose here?
>
> Thanks,
>   Jussi
>
>> +
>> +
>>   LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
>>                       file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
>>                       file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
>> --
>> 2.3.5
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[Khem Raj]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:40 AM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For me LGPLv2+ makes is all version above GPL2, but since I am not a lawyer
> it makes not sense on how to play that game. So I decided to drop pressuring
> the update.

We should represent what the license text says

" This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version."

then you say GPL-2.0+

Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1805 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 10:58:21AM +0530, Armin Kuster wrote:
> adding the license definitions on the few packages that
> deviate from the overall package license.
> 
> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
> and spot checking files.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
> ---
>  meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
>  HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
>  SECTION = "libs"
>  LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"

It would be nice to package GPLv2 files in separate package as well (or
LGPLv2.1 library in seprate package) if you have time to do that.

> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
> +
> +# both public and GPL license listed
> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> +
> +
>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
>                      file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
>                      file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
> -- 
> 2.3.5
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[Jussi Kukkonen]

On 18 August 2015 at 11:03, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 10:58:21AM +0530, Armin Kuster wrote:
>> adding the license definitions on the few packages that
>> deviate from the overall package license.
>>
>> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
>> and spot checking files.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
>>  HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
>>  SECTION = "libs"
>>  LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"
>
> It would be nice to package GPLv2 files in separate package as well (or
> LGPLv2.1 library in seprate package) if you have time to do that.

Forgot to answer this, sorry.

For 2.7.1 what you suggest may work -- there may be some tools that
are GPLv2 that we could separate. But for the new version the strange
" "LGPLv3+ | GPLv2+" license combo is _not_ a result of the library
being LGPL and some utilities being GPL: the library itself (like a
lot of GNU stuff nowadays) is dual licensed like that.

It seems weird but actually makes sense for GNU: It forces all users
to comply with LGPLv3, except the GPLv2 programs that can't easily be
relicensed to GPLv3. Those GPLv2 programs would be incompatible with
the newer LGPLv3 libraries but this dual-licensing lets them off the
hook.

Jussi



>> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
>> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
>> +
>> +# both public and GPL license listed
>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
>> +
>> +
>>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
>>                      file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
>>                      file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
>> --
>> 2.3.5
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
> --
> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3186 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48:30AM +0300, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
> On 18 August 2015 at 11:03, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 10:58:21AM +0530, Armin Kuster wrote:
> >> adding the license definitions on the few packages that
> >> deviate from the overall package license.
> >>
> >> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
> >> and spot checking files.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
> >> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
> >>  HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
> >>  SECTION = "libs"
> >>  LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"
> >
> > It would be nice to package GPLv2 files in separate package as well (or
> > LGPLv2.1 library in seprate package) if you have time to do that.
> 
> Forgot to answer this, sorry.
> 
> For 2.7.1 what you suggest may work -- there may be some tools that
> are GPLv2 that we could separate. But for the new version the strange
> " "LGPLv3+ | GPLv2+" license combo is _not_ a result of the library
> being LGPL and some utilities being GPL: the library itself (like a
> lot of GNU stuff nowadays) is dual licensed like that.

This means that we need to preserve nettle 2.7.1 for people who cannot
use LGPLv3 (and GPLv2 for libraries).

> It seems weird but actually makes sense for GNU: It forces all users
> to comply with LGPLv3, except the GPLv2 programs that can't easily be
> relicensed to GPLv3. Those GPLv2 programs would be incompatible with
> the newer LGPLv3 libraries but this dual-licensing lets them off the
> hook.
> 
> Jussi
> 
> 
> 
> >> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
> >> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
> >> +
> >> +# both public and GPL license listed
> >> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> >> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> >> +
> >> +
> >>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
> >>                      file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
> >>                      file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
> >> --
> >> 2.3.5
> >>
> >> --
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >
> > --
> > Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-core mailing list
> > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[akuster808]

On 08/21/2015 05:06 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48:30AM +0300, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
>> On 18 August 2015 at 11:03, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 10:58:21AM +0530, Armin Kuster wrote:
>>>> adding the license definitions on the few packages that
>>>> deviate from the overall package license.
>>>>
>>>> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
>>>> and spot checking files.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>>>> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
>>>> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
>>>>   HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
>>>>   SECTION = "libs"
>>>>   LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"
>>>
>>> It would be nice to package GPLv2 files in separate package as well (or
>>> LGPLv2.1 library in seprate package) if you have time to do that.
>>
>> Forgot to answer this, sorry.
>>
>> For 2.7.1 what you suggest may work -- there may be some tools that
>> are GPLv2 that we could separate. But for the new version the strange
>> " "LGPLv3+ | GPLv2+" license combo is _not_ a result of the library
>> being LGPL and some utilities being GPL: the library itself (like a
>> lot of GNU stuff nowadays) is dual licensed like that.
>
> This means that we need to preserve nettle 2.7.1 for people who cannot
> use LGPLv3 (and GPLv2 for libraries).

ok. SO if I resubmit the update, it should be an addition not 
replacement. Would I define PREFERRED_VERSION then as well?

- armin
>
>> It seems weird but actually makes sense for GNU: It forces all users
>> to comply with LGPLv3, except the GPLv2 programs that can't easily be
>> relicensed to GPLv3. Those GPLv2 programs would be incompatible with
>> the newer LGPLv3 libraries but this dual-licensing lets them off the
>> hook.
>>
>> Jussi
>>
>>
>>
>>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
>>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
>>>> +
>>>> +# both public and GPL license listed
>>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
>>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>>   LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
>>>>                       file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
>>>>                       file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
>>>> --
>>>> 2.3.5
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>

Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3787 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 07:31:40AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/21/2015 05:06 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48:30AM +0300, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
> >> On 18 August 2015 at 11:03, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 10:58:21AM +0530, Armin Kuster wrote:
> >>>> adding the license definitions on the few packages that
> >>>> deviate from the overall package license.
> >>>>
> >>>> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
> >>>> and spot checking files.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>   meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
> >>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >>>> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
> >>>> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >>>> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
> >>>>   HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
> >>>>   SECTION = "libs"
> >>>>   LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"
> >>>
> >>> It would be nice to package GPLv2 files in separate package as well (or
> >>> LGPLv2.1 library in seprate package) if you have time to do that.
> >>
> >> Forgot to answer this, sorry.
> >>
> >> For 2.7.1 what you suggest may work -- there may be some tools that
> >> are GPLv2 that we could separate. But for the new version the strange
> >> " "LGPLv3+ | GPLv2+" license combo is _not_ a result of the library
> >> being LGPL and some utilities being GPL: the library itself (like a
> >> lot of GNU stuff nowadays) is dual licensed like that.
> >
> > This means that we need to preserve nettle 2.7.1 for people who cannot
> > use LGPLv3 (and GPLv2 for libraries).
> 
> ok. SO if I resubmit the update, it should be an addition not 
> replacement. Would I define PREFERRED_VERSION then as well?

You don't need PREFERRED_VERSION.

Latest will be used by default and setups with incompatible license will
skip the latest and use 2.7.1 one.

> 
> - armin
> >
> >> It seems weird but actually makes sense for GNU: It forces all users
> >> to comply with LGPLv3, except the GPLv2 programs that can't easily be
> >> relicensed to GPLv3. Those GPLv2 programs would be incompatible with
> >> the newer LGPLv3 libraries but this dual-licensing lets them off the
> >> hook.
> >>
> >> Jussi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
> >>>> +
> >>>> +# both public and GPL license listed
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> >>>> +
> >>>> +
> >>>>   LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
> >>>>                       file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
> >>>>                       file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.3.5
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> >>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >>>
> >

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]