On 10/20/2010 08:37 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > 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:
GCC and Autoconf both being GNU projects, their license is probably not GPLv3, but GPLv3+ (with some exception), in the discussed notation. ;-) Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
