On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:11 -0500, 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.
The metadata itself is MIT-licensed, and I believe the MIT license is fairly uncontroversial/non-viral. So that seems like the obvious choice for the header as well (if we have to have it, though as I mentioned in my mail in the other thread just now, maybe we'd be better off without it). > 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...) Yes, I think that would be fine. The GNU project has some boilerplate text for disclaiming copyright and you might be able to just use that. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
