[oe] [PATCHv2] 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
> Denys Dmytriyenko
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:37 PM
> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields
> 
> 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:

Secondary issue is what to do about spaces in the LICENSE?  Using "GPLv3 with Autoconf CSE" will yield a copy of the sources in the

GPLv3
with
Autoconf
CSE

directories.  Should we be using spaces in the LICENSE name like this or perhaps "-"

> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/exceptions.html
> 
> There you can see they use acronym GCC RLE, but not the other one...
> 
> --
> Denys
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel