On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 07:31:40AM -0700, akuster808 wrote: > > > On 08/21/2015 05:06 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48:30AM +0300, Jussi Kukkonen wrote: > >> On 18 August 2015 at 11:03, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 10:58:21AM +0530, Armin Kuster wrote: > >>>> adding the license definitions on the few packages that > >>>> deviate from the overall package license. > >>>> > >>>> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright > >>>> and spot checking files. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <[email protected]> > >>>> --- > >>>> meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb > >>>> b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb > >>>> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644 > >>>> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb > >>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb > >>>> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library" > >>>> HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"; > >>>> SECTION = "libs" > >>>> LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2" > >>> > >>> It would be nice to package GPLv2 files in separate package as well (or > >>> LGPLv2.1 library in seprate package) if you have time to do that. > >> > >> Forgot to answer this, sorry. > >> > >> For 2.7.1 what you suggest may work -- there may be some tools that > >> are GPLv2 that we could separate. But for the new version the strange > >> " "LGPLv3+ | GPLv2+" license combo is _not_ a result of the library > >> being LGPL and some utilities being GPL: the library itself (like a > >> lot of GNU stuff nowadays) is dual licensed like that. > > > > This means that we need to preserve nettle 2.7.1 for people who cannot > > use LGPLv3 (and GPLv2 for libraries). > > ok. SO if I resubmit the update, it should be an addition not > replacement. Would I define PREFERRED_VERSION then as well?
You don't need PREFERRED_VERSION.
Latest will be used by default and setups with incompatible license will
skip the latest and use 2.7.1 one.
>
> - armin
> >
> >> It seems weird but actually makes sense for GNU: It forces all users
> >> to comply with LGPLv3, except the GPLv2 programs that can't easily be
> >> relicensed to GPLv3. Those GPLv2 programs would be incompatible with
> >> the newer LGPLv3 libraries but this dual-licensing lets them off the
> >> hook.
> >>
> >> Jussi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
> >>>> +
> >>>> +# both public and GPL license listed
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> >>>> +
> >>>> +
> >>>> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
> >>>> "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
> >>>>
> >>>> file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d
> >>>> \
> >>>>
> >>>> file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.3.5
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >>>
> >
--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
