[oe] [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields

[Maupin, Chase]

> 
> I'm not sure if it is a policy. Haven't seen it being pulished as such.
> Having said that, I have no problems with it (although there is no
> problem with enforcing patents or so for v2+ , as that still falls
> under the v2 umbrella).
> 
> I guess most of our recipes that say GPLv2 are wrong and are v2+.
> It might be hard to distinguish between these though, it could well be
> that the license file says v2 and a comment in the code says v2+.
> Glad I do not have to deal with this any more....

Frans,

That is exactly the issue that is so annoying.  The COPYING file usually says the standard GPLv2, but if you go and read the license text in the code that is where it says GPLv2 (or later) so GPLv2+.  This patch was modified to go off the license in the code since that is more likely what the developer actually intended and not an auto-generated file.

Koen,

What about GPLv3 licensed files with an exception?  Right now I have that as GPLv3+exception.  Was there ever any discussion about how to handle these?  I am trying to indicate that it is not a standard GPLv3 license.

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