Re: [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>]

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
>>>
>