For what it's worth, we (a major car manufacturer :) do use meta-gpl2 here, but it was always intended as a temporary solution, and once we have master branch builds up and running (currently everything is based on thud), work will get underway to take per-image license restriction into use, drop meta-gpl2 and then identify and eliminate any remaining gpl3 dependencies - for the product image only. Images for developers will get a free pass to install anything developers want.
Alex On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 13:02, Ross Burton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/01/2020 11:19, Richard Purdie wrote: > > I believe the concept of meta-gplv2 is broken. We don't want to > > maintain old versions of the software in a clean room style environment > > as the upstreams all move forward with new development, features and > > incompatibilities. It was created as a bandaid, its probably time to > > move on? > > > > We'd be better off looking at replacing these components with others > > with acceptable licensing, as Alex recently demonstrated in OE-Core. > > I agree. The bulk of the software in there is *old*. I hope that the > intesection of "I'm releasing a commercial product, GPLv3 is forbidden" > and "I'm releasing a commercial product but don't care the software I'm > shipping is a decade old" is pretty small. > > How much actually breaks without meta-gpl2 now? > > Ross > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-architecture mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-architecture >
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-architecture mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-architecture
