2010/10/11 Koen Kooi <[email protected]>: > -----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
I'm not sure if it is a policy. Haven't seen it being pulished as such. Having said that, I have no problems with it (although there is no problem with enforcing patents or so for v2+ , as that still falls under the v2 umbrella). I guess most of our recipes that say GPLv2 are wrong and are v2+. It might be hard to distinguish between these though, it could well be that the license file says v2 and a comment in the code says v2+. Glad I do not have to deal with this any more.... Frans _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
