Am Dienstag, den 07.10.2014, 15:17 +0200 schrieb Andreas Pretzsch: > On Do, 2014-10-02 at 15:14 +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote: > > And a rather large stack of patches that > > add license information to various patches. > > Any reason why you did not pick up the below ones ?
Mostly because I have collected all the clear-cut cases first, missed a few, and postponed others: > From: Robert Schwebel <r.schwe...@pengutronix.de> > > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 02/36] binutils: add license information > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:18:04 +0200 The binutils version depends on the toolchain, and the license changed from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ some time ago. I guess a mechanism to add version dependent license information is needed here. For now this can only be set in the BSP, where the Toolchain version is known. > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 03/36] boost: add license information > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:18:05 +0200 Right, I wanted to question the Python-2.0 license. The MIT license is listed because of the rapidxml-1.13 copy in libs/geometry/doc/src/docutils/tools/doxygen_xml2qbk/contrib. I didn't see any Python licensed code except the header file boost/python/detail/python22_fixed.h, and that is from Python 2.2/2.2.1. The python license changes (changed?) all the time, so I guess this should be Python-2.2 or Python-2.2.1 instead. [...] > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 18/36] libmd: add license information > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:18:20 +0200 > > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 33/36] xorg-font-alias: add license information > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:18:35 +0200 > > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 34/36] xorg-font-ttf-bitstream-vera: add > license information > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:18:36 +0200 > > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 35/36] xorg-font-util: add license information > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:18:37 +0200 > > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 36/36] xorg-fonts: add license information > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:18:38 +0200 > > From: Andreas Pretzsch <a...@cn-eng.de> > > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 03/16] fontconfig: add license information > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:57:50 +0200 It is not clear to me if we want to list custom licenses each with their own name in the license field, or if there should be some categorization or catch-all values instead. > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 04/16] gcclibs: add license information > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:57:51 +0200 This suffers from the same problem as binutils. [...] > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH 29/36] screen: add license information > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:18:31 +0200 > > Subject: [ptxdist] [PATCH] tomcat: add license information > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:31:50 +0200 I just have missed these when preparing the review branch. regards Philipp -- ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de
