-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-10-10 20:14, Maupin, Chase wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Frans Meulenbroeks >> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 12:41 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields >> >> 2010/10/11 Chase Maupin <[email protected]>: >>> * While verifying the licensing for the packages I am building >>> into my file system I found that for some packages the >>> LICENSE value set in the recipe was either incorrect or >>> generic and not detailed enough. This patch is my attempt >>> to update the LICENSE fields for these packages to match >>> the actual versions of the licenses in the sources. >>> >> >> [...] >> >>> -LICENSE = "GPLv2" >>> +LICENSE = "GPLv2+" >> >> Doe we want this? >> I think most GPLv2 code carries the clause: >> >> "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or >> modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License >> as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 >> of the License, or (at your option) any later version." >> >> Yet currently virtually all of these have GPL or GPLv2 as LICENSE > > Frans, > > My original version of this patch was just changing GPL to GPLv2 for example. > But I was asked about whether it should be GPLv2+ which I guess is more > indicative of the "or later" clause. Does anyone have good guidance here on > how to denote things that are GPLv2 only for now (like git which Linux has a > note in the COPYING file about it being GPLv2) and things that are GPLv2 or > later version? I'm trying for consistency here but I guess there doesn't > seem to be a set policy for how the LICENSE field should be set.
The current policy is: GPLv1 -> GPL version 1 GPLv1+ -> GPL version 1 or later GPLv2 -> GPL version 2 GPLv2+ -> GPL version 2 or later GPLv3 -> GPL version 3 GPLv3+ -> GPL version 3 or later This was done to make it immediately clear which GPL license it's using so you can decide to drop GPLv2+ and GPLv3 from your manifest if you want secure boot or enforce patents. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFMs1olMkyGM64RGpERAsAeAJ90Gp4LBCEyDQOYKMQswvyD5ymbhwCdHdH/ 2Lt14nkyseMjn1ScePVbF34= =x1oc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
