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

[Andreas Oberritter]

On 10/20/2010 08:37 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> 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:

GCC and Autoconf both being GNU projects, their license is probably not
GPLv3, but GPLv3+ (with some exception), in the discussed notation. ;-)

Regards,
Andreas