<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Khem Raj <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com" target="_blank">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Flanagan, Elizabeth<br>
<<a href="mailto:elizabeth.flanagan@intel.com">elizabeth.flanagan@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 30 August 2015 at 17:31, Khem Raj <<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> There is m4/ax_pthread.m4 macro which uses GPL-3.0 with autoconf<br>
>> exception, there is no other occurance of GPL-3.0 use, lets mark the<br>
>> licence correctly.<br>
><br>
> Unless the macro is actually shipped with any of the packages, I don't<br>
> think we actually need to do this. Generally, LICENSE should be the<br>
> intersection of all LICENSE_${PN}*.<br>
<br>
</span>its not shipped on target,<br>
<span class=""><br>
><br>
> I think the correct fix here is actually:<br>
><br>
> LICENSE = "GPLv2+ & PD"<br>
<br>
</span>why did you drop LGPLv2.1+</blockquote></div><br>I think we need a way to indicate the license of the source in addition to the license of what we ship, to cover the case where the license affects the ability to redistribute sources. I'd thought that the base LICENSE was essentially that. If that's not the case, then we should give some careful thought to how to cover both.<br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Christopher Larson<br>clarson at kergoth dot com<br>Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus<br>Maintainer - Tslib<br>Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics</div>
</div></div>