On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Flanagan, Elizabeth <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed! One note about "+". There is still a discussion about "or > greater" licensing within the SPDX community about how "or greater" > should be dealt with. > > http://www.spdx.org/wiki/proposal-2010-11-16-1-or-later-version-licensing > https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591
Interesting. > I'm partial to, as a stop gap, re-including L/GPL-x.0+ license files > into common-licenses until they hash it out and treating "+" as just > part of the license name. It's not a perfect solution but it should > solve most "or greater" use cases. I've been thinking about something like this. LICENSE_EXPANSIONS += "GPL-2.0+:GPL-2.0,GPL-3.0" Then process the license, turning GPL-2.0+ into an OR operation. Replace with (GPL-2.0 | GPL-3.0). Perhaps coupled with something like https://gist.github.com/1590028 to express distributor preferences, we then get a sanitized, SDPX, flat string with the licenses we're going to be using for this. Then we run this against each binary package's LICENSE (if different than recipe) and ensure our emitted binary packages match up with our license choices. -- Christopher Larson _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
