* Mark Hatle <[email protected]> [140701 23:12]: > On 7/1/14, 3:56 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > > On 1 July 2014 21:01, Mark Hatle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +LICENSE = "AGPL-3.0"
> > Presumably AGPL-v3 has the same clauses that caused > > INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSES to exist? > > Does this mean that we should update the documentation to add AGPL-3.0 > > to the list of licenses being blacklisted in no-v3 builds, and that in > > no-v3 images we can't have rpm on the target? > I'm not sure. We likely need someone (with a legal background) to > investigate > and let us know. That's probably the best idea. > Baring that, it's likely that AGPL-3.0 has similar restrictions to GPL v3 and > LGPL v3. I took a quick look at AGPL-3.0, and as far as I can see, all the clauses that makes companies avoid GPL-3.0 are also in AGPL-3.0. Thus, INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSES ought to be extended to also cover AGPL-3.0. > This might make it worthwhile in keeping the older Sleepycat licensed version > around and making related changes to RPM to allow use of the older version if > appropriate. That's definitely something we need, just as we keep GPLv2 versions around when the upstream project has switched to GPLv3. Cheers, Anders -- Anders Darander ChargeStorm AB / eStorm AB -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
