On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:46:40PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > > Op 31 jul. 2012, om 13:26 heeft Richard Purdie > <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > > > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 21:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > >> * original recipe added by RP in fc128ab1e4fec27d44cebfa690a9bc233eda0caf > >> was saying GPL > >> * later it was changed to GPLv2 > >> * COPYING.GPL was added to reflect that > >> * meta-oe has similar recipe with MIT license and even more scripts, so > >> lets change LICENSE here too > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf/COPYING.GPL | 339 > >> --------------------- > >> meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf_1.0.bb | 8 +- > >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 343 deletions(-) > >> delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf/COPYING.GPL > > > > Er, I think we need to be a little more careful than this. Just because > > you want something to be so, doesn't make it happen just like that... > > > > Looking at the commit, I've just copied the license from the original > > source which was a GPLv2 recipe (udev). Where did mount.blacklist come > > from originally? Is there evidence its MIT licensed? How did meta-oe > > conclude this was MIT licensed? > > It was written for oe-classic -> MIT licensed
ping4, are some lawyers still working on this? -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
