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

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:27:54PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org
> > [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> > Denys Dmytriyenko
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:16 PM
> > To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> > Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 02:53:59PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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,
> > 
> > Does it say what kind of exception it is? If it has a name, it's better to
> > specify it. For libgcc/libstdc++ I ended up specifying "GPLv3 with GCC
> > RLE",
> > which stands for GCC Runtime Library Exception:
> 
> Denys,
> 
> The COPYING.EXCEPTION file has the title "AUTOCONF CONFIGURE SCRIPT 
> EXCEPTION".  Would you like this changed to "GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE"?

Chase,

Either "GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE" or even "GPLv3 with Autoconf Configure 
Script Exception"... I'm not sure CSE is as common as RLE - here's the 
list of current GNU exceptions:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/exceptions.html

There you can see they use acronym GCC RLE, but not the other one...

-- 
Denys