[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 2:03 PM
> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCHv2] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields
> 
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 08:57:01PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> > On 10/20/2010 08:37 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:27:54PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > >>> 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. ;-)
> 
> Interesting point! We should try to be future-proof with GPLv3+ too :)
> Although I haven't seen anyone using it this way, as it's not relevant yet.

I'll make it GPLv3+ since I do see some "or later" comments.

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