[OE-core] [PATCH] nettle: clean up license information

[Martin Jansa]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 07:31:40AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/21/2015 05:06 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48:30AM +0300, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
> >> On 18 August 2015 at 11:03, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 10:58:21AM +0530, Armin Kuster wrote:
> >>>> adding the license definitions on the few packages that
> >>>> deviate from the overall package license.
> >>>>
> >>>> based on http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/nettle.html#Copyright
> >>>> and spot checking files.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808 at gmail.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>   meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb | 9 +++++++++
> >>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >>>> index f53afcc..f9d331f 100644
> >>>> --- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle_2.7.1.bb
> >>>> @@ -2,6 +2,15 @@ SUMMARY = "A low level cryptographic library"
> >>>>   HOMEPAGE = "http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/nettle/"
> >>>>   SECTION = "libs"
> >>>>   LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2"
> >>>
> >>> It would be nice to package GPLv2 files in separate package as well (or
> >>> LGPLv2.1 library in seprate package) if you have time to do that.
> >>
> >> Forgot to answer this, sorry.
> >>
> >> For 2.7.1 what you suggest may work -- there may be some tools that
> >> are GPLv2 that we could separate. But for the new version the strange
> >> " "LGPLv3+ | GPLv2+" license combo is _not_ a result of the library
> >> being LGPL and some utilities being GPL: the library itself (like a
> >> lot of GNU stuff nowadays) is dual licensed like that.
> >
> > This means that we need to preserve nettle 2.7.1 for people who cannot
> > use LGPLv3 (and GPLv2 for libraries).
> 
> ok. SO if I resubmit the update, it should be an addition not 
> replacement. Would I define PREFERRED_VERSION then as well?

You don't need PREFERRED_VERSION.

Latest will be used by default and setups with incompatible license will
skip the latest and use 2.7.1 one.

> 
> - armin
> >
> >> It seems weird but actually makes sense for GNU: It forces all users
> >> to comply with LGPLv3, except the GPLv2 programs that can't easily be
> >> relicensed to GPLv3. Those GPLv2 programs would be incompatible with
> >> the newer LGPLv3 libraries but this dual-licensing lets them off the
> >> hook.
> >>
> >> Jussi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-cast = "CC0"
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-gosthash = "MIT"
> >>>> +
> >>>> +# both public and GPL license listed
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md2 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> >>>> +LICENSE_${PN}-md4 = "CC0 & LGPLv2.1+"
> >>>> +
> >>>> +
> >>>>   LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING.LIB;md5=2d5025d4aa3495befef8f17206a5b0a1 \
> >>>>                       file://serpent-decrypt.c;beginline=53;endline=67;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d \
> >>>>                       file://serpent-set-key.c;beginline=56;endline=70;md5=bcfd4745d53ca57f82907089898e390d"
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.3.5
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >>>> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> >>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >>> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >>>
> >

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20150821/9f9cd1c4/attachment-0002.sig>