[oe] [PATCH] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields

[Maupin, Chase]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Holger Freyther
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:18 PM
> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields
> 
> On 09/25/2010 12:08 AM, Chase Maupin wrote:
> 
> >
> > diff --git a/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> b/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> > index 35b0289..70e24a0 100644
> > --- a/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> > +++ b/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >  DESCRIPTION = "A package of M4 macros to produce scripts to \
> >  automatically configure sourcecode."
> > -LICENSE = "GPL"
> > +LICENSE = "GPLv3+exception"
> 
> hmm... but at your option the exception might be omitted.. and there are
> many
> possible exception clauses... so it doesn't really say what it is.

So how would you mark this as a package that contains an exception?  My intention here is to note that this is not standard GPLv3

> 
> 
> 
> >  HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/"
> >  SECTION = "devel"
> >  DEPENDS += "m4-native"
> > diff --git a/recipes/autoconf/autoconf213_2.13.bb
> b/recipes/autoconf/autoconf213_2.13.bb
> > index d060bbd..4c855e0 100644
> > --- a/recipes/autoconf/autoconf213_2.13.bb
> > +++ b/recipes/autoconf/autoconf213_2.13.bb
> > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> >  require autoconf.inc
> > +LICENSE = "GPLv2"
> 
> hard to believe... sure it is not v2 and later? it should be the standard
> FSF
> text? isn't it?

It doesn't have the "or later" clause.

> 
> 
> > +LICENSE = "GPLv2 AFLv2.1"
> 
> good..
> 
> 
> 
> > -LICENSE = "BSD"
> > +LICENSE = "NewBSD"
> 
> could you point me to anyone using the term NewBSD? BSD license without
> advertisement clause? common but also misleading terms are 2-clause, 3-
> clause
> BSD...

I got this distinction from what may be a bad place, but it was Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses).  I have heard people refer to NewBSD, FreeBSD, and BSD around my work.  I was setting these to make it clear which version of the BSD the license was.

> 
> 
> 
> > diff --git a/recipes/tinylogin/tinylogin_1.4.bb
> b/recipes/tinylogin/tinylogin_1.4.bb
> > index 40171ff..730012b 100644
> > --- a/recipes/tinylogin/tinylogin_1.4.bb
> > +++ b/recipes/tinylogin/tinylogin_1.4.bb
> > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ changing passwords, and otherwise maintaining users \
> >  and groups on an embedded system."
> >  HOMEPAGE = "http://tinylogin.busybox.net/"
> >  SECTION = "base"
> > -LICENSE = "GPLv2"
> > +LICENSE = "GPLv2/NewBSD"
> 
> please don't use a '/'. IIRC this source will be put into a folder with
> that
> name...

I understand.  How should we denote recipes that have dual licenses?  I figured "GPLv2 NewBSD" mean it was either license.  Perhaps this should be "GPLv2+NewBSD"?

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel