Hi Armin, On Friday 03 July 2015 14:54:22 akuster808 wrote: > On 07/03/2015 12:07 AM, Anders Darander wrote: > > * akuster808 <[email protected]> [150702 19:05]: > >> The current version of nettle 2.7 has one file that is GPL v3. > >> mini-gmp.* > >> > >> so the license for 2.7 should be updated IMHO. So wont that put us in the > >> same boat as the upgrade? > > > > Ouch, that's no good! > > > > Ideally, we should look at that file and see for how long it's been part > > of nettle. If it's just for a short time, maybe we could go back to a > > point in time just prior to the inclusion (or license change) of that > > file. > > this file has been in nettle for two years. It was introduced with th > 2.7 release. Parts of that file are pulled from the gmp project. > > > Has it been like this for far too long, well, then we either have to see > > what impact this has on non-GPLv3 builds... > > Does "Lesser" GPLv3 count? Looked a the file again and 'Lesser' is near > the beginning of the paragraph before 'version 3'. > > Does this change things for nettle 2.7?
Well, at minimum for our purposes LGPLv3 (or LGPLv3+?) needs to be added to LICENSE in the nettle recipe (with &). Whether or not someone chooses to exclude that license in their configuration through INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE is a completely separate matter (and that is, as you allude to, a distinct license from GPLv3). I just think it's something that upstream ought to be noting in their license statement, because they don't appear to be at the moment. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
