On 04/12/2017 03:50 AM, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
On 12 April 2017 at 12:54, Paul Eggleton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wednesday, 12 April 2017 7:14:00 PM NZST Jussi Kukkonen wrote: > On 11 April 2017 at 23:52, Martin Kelly <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I'm thinking about integrating the open-vm-tools recipe from openswitch[1] > > into openembedded (it massively improves the performance of VMWare guests) > > but first I have a question about licensing. The openswitch repository is > > Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers are all MIT licensed. I'm > > not > > a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Apache license is a superset of > > the MIT license (it includes a patent clause that the MIT license lacks), > > and therefore MIT code can be relicensed as Apache but not the other way > > around. > > The license of the layer refers to the licensing of the recipe files > themselves: the source code licenses of the projects the recipes fetch and > build are another thing. As long as the source code license is an open > source one there should be no complaints about integrating into an > openembedded layer. > > To be completely clear: The LICENSE variable in a recipe refers to the > source code license of the project to be built and should be set based on > the licensing info found within the version of source code that we fetch > and build. The recipe files are licensed according to the LICENSE and/or > COPYING files of the layer it is in. > > By the way, a quick search on layers.openembedded.org <http://layers.openembedded.org> reveals this: > http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/me <http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/me> > ta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools/open-vm-tools_10.0.5.bb <http://open-vm-tools_10.0.5.bb> > (it seems to think the correct license is GPL). This is muddying the waters somewhat - the LICENSE variable has nothing to do with this. We're only concerned with the license of the recipe itself. Thanks Paul: I was indeed confused and did not understand this was about an existing recipe even though it was clearly explained in the original post. Sorry for the noise. Jussi
Right, I should have clarified. The underlying code is LGPLv2/GPLv2, but the recipe file itself is Apache licensed, which is my concern.
It sounds like I should ask openswitch for relicensing first. If they say no, we can consider the situation further.
-- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
