[OE-core] [PATCH 1/5] multilib_header.bbclass: Add oe_multilib_header wrapper

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:11 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 7/25/11 8:54 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >> +/*  Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Wind River Systems, Inc.
> >> + *
> >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >> + * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 as
> >> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> 
> I believe we're flexibly with the license statement in the file.. (Just
> verifying it to make sure I am allowed to change it.)
> 
> I personally don't believe it's a big deal, but I understand the concern.  Is
> there a different wording/license statement that would make more sense?  My
> concern is that if we make the license dynamic it's a lot of pain for no real
> technical reason.

The metadata itself is MIT-licensed, and I believe the MIT license is
fairly uncontroversial/non-viral.  So that seems like the obvious choice
for the header as well (if we have to have it, though as I mentioned in
my mail in the other thread just now, maybe we'd be better off without
it).

> I'd like to see if we (WR) can just put a statement on it that it can be used
> for any purpose -- whatever the legalize is for that -- and if that would
> satisfy your concerns.  (BTW: Our goal of course is NOT to change the license of
> the produced binary in any way...)

Yes, I think that would be fine.  The GNU project has some boilerplate
text for disclaiming copyright and you might be able to just use that.

p.