> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Denys Dmytriyenko > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:37 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:27:54PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > > > Denys Dmytriyenko > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:16 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE > fields > > > > > > 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: > > > > Denys, > > > > The COPYING.EXCEPTION file has the title "AUTOCONF CONFIGURE SCRIPT > > EXCEPTION". Would you like this changed to "GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE"? > > Chase, > > Either "GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE" or even "GPLv3 with Autoconf Configure > Script Exception"... I'm not sure CSE is as common as RLE - here's the > list of current GNU exceptions:
Secondary issue is what to do about spaces in the LICENSE? Using "GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE" will yield a copy of the sources in the GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE directories. Should we be using spaces in the LICENSE name like this or perhaps "-" > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/exceptions.html > > There you can see they use acronym GCC RLE, but not the other one... > > -- > Denys > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
