Re: [PATCH 1/5] multilib_header.bbclass: Add oe_multilib_header wrapper

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 7/25/11 8:54 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> +/*  Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Wind River Systems, Inc.
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.

I believe we're flexibly with the license statement in the file.. (Just
verifying it to make sure I am allowed to change it.)

I personally don't believe it's a big deal, but I understand the concern.  Is
there a different wording/license statement that would make more sense?  My
concern is that if we make the license dynamic it's a lot of pain for no real
technical reason.

I'd like to see if we (WR) can just put a statement on it that it can be used
for any purpose -- whatever the legalize is for that -- and if that would
satisfy your concerns.  (BTW: Our goal of course is NOT to change the license of
the produced binary in any way...)

> This is going to cause LGPL 2.1 content to appear in the output
> packages.  For things like binutils this is probably not a big deal,
> since they are GPL already, but for ncurses (previously MIT-licensed)
> this is a potentially significant change.  In any case I think there
> needs to be some way of making sure that the LICENSE is updated
> appropriately when this file is included.
> 
> p.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core