Right now, it gives a warning during build. Just because some think we should support both, it does not mean we have to *use* both. Applying the patch should fix the warning message, which should be priority one.
Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson > 30 sep 2015 kl. 13:58 skrev Paul Eggleton <[email protected]>: > > Yes I'm aware of that. What I was pointing out is that usually we have an > SPDXLICENSEMAP setting to map e.g. GPLv2 -> GPL-2.0; there is no such mapping > for GFDL; I guess the assumption was that there was. > > Cheers, > Paul > >> On Wednesday 30 September 2015 13:53:08 Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >> There is no GFDLv1.1 file in the license directory >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------ openembedded-core/meta/files/common-licenses$ ls GFDL* >> >> GFDL-1.1 GFDL-1.2 GFDL-1.3 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------ >> >> It does not make sense to have a duplicate file. >> >> Incidently, the GFDL-1.1 file contains the GFDL-1.2 license, not the 1.1 >> license. >> >> /Ulf >> >>> Den 2015-09-30 kl. 13:05, skrev Paul Eggleton: >>>> On Wednesday 30 September 2015 03:10:56 Khem Raj wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Ulf Samuelsson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> -LICENSE = "GPLv2 & LGPLv2 & GFDLv1.1" >>>>> +LICENSE = "GPLv2 & LGPLv2 & GFDL-1.1" >>>> >>>> IIRC both are correct >>> >>> I don't think we have an SPDXLICENSEMAP entry for this though, so it won't >>> be being mapped (unlike GPLv2 -> GPL-2.0). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Paul > > -- > > Paul Eggleton > Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
