From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QljZp-0007Ma-8Y for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:29:45 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6QFPVQt024444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Macintosh-5.local (172.25.36.226) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:25:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4E2EDC6A.50001@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:25:30 -0500 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <1311602099.30326.217.camel@phil-desktop> <4E2DA3CB.7070902@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2DA3CB.7070902@windriver.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] multilib_header.bbclass: Add oe_multilib_header wrapper X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:29:45 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/25/11 12:11 PM, Mark Hatle wrote: > 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...) Looking for feedback, would the CC0: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.txt work, or would this still "contaminate" the license statement in your opinion? --Mark >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core