On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 02:53:59PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote: > > > > 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, > > That is exactly the issue that is so annoying. The COPYING file usually > says the standard GPLv2, but if you go and read the license text in the code > that is where it says GPLv2 (or later) so GPLv2+. This patch was modified > to go off the license in the code since that is more likely what the > developer actually intended and not an auto-generated file. > > Koen, > > What about GPLv3 licensed files with an exception? Right now I have that as > GPLv3+exception. Was there ever any discussion about how to handle these? > I am trying to indicate that it is not a standard GPLv3 license.
Chase, Does it say what kind of exception it is? If it has a name, it's better to specify it. For libgcc/libstdc++ I ended up specifying "GPLv3 with GCC RLE", which stands for GCC Runtime Library Exception: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html -- Denys _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
