On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:04:25PM +0200, Martin Ertsaas wrote: > According to http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi/, libftdi itself > is licensed under LGPLv2, > with some parts (eeprom programmer) is licensed under GPLv2. There doesn't > seem to be any part licensed > under a GPLv2-REL variation of GPLv2, and so we should use GPLv2 instead of > GPLv2-REL.
Is it REL or RLE? Your subject and body says REL while LICENSE says RLE. Cheers, > Signed-off-by: Martin Ertsaas <[email protected]> > --- > meta-oe/recipes-support/libftdi/libftdi_0.19.bb | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-support/libftdi/libftdi_0.19.bb > b/meta-oe/recipes-support/libftdi/libftdi_0.19.bb > index 2dba3f4..0842aaf 100644 > --- a/meta-oe/recipes-support/libftdi/libftdi_0.19.bb > +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-support/libftdi/libftdi_0.19.bb > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ including the popular bitbang mode." > HOMEPAGE = "http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi/"; > SECTION = "libs" > > -LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 GPLv2-RLE" > +LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 GPLv2" > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM= "file://COPYING.GPL;md5=751419260aa954499f7abaabaa882bbe \ > file://COPYING.LIB;md5=db979804f025cf55aabec7129cb671ed \ > " > -- > 1.7.8.6 > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
