[oe] [PATCH] Use GFDL-1.1 instead of GFDLv1.1

[Paul Eggleton]

Perhaps it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you ;) I'm not even sure we need 
to add a mapping for this.

Cheers,
Paul

On Thursday 01 October 2015 00:08:00 Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Right now, it gives a warning during build.
> Just because some think we should support both, it does not mean we have to
> *use* both. Applying the patch should fix the warning message, which should
> be priority one.
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> Ulf Samuelsson
> 
> > 30 sep 2015 kl. 13:58 skrev Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com>:
> > 
> > Yes I'm aware of that. What I was pointing out is that usually we have an
> > SPDXLICENSEMAP setting to map e.g. GPLv2 -> GPL-2.0; there is no such
> > mapping for GFDL; I guess the assumption was that there was.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> > 
> >> On Wednesday 30 September 2015 13:53:08 Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >> There is no GFDLv1.1 file in the license directory
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --- ------ openembedded-core/meta/files/common-licenses$ ls GFDL*
> >> 
> >> GFDL-1.1  GFDL-1.2  GFDL-1.3
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --- ------
> >> 
> >> It does not make sense to have a duplicate file.
> >> 
> >> Incidently, the GFDL-1.1 file contains the GFDL-1.2 license, not the 1.1
> >> license.
> >> 
> >> /Ulf
> >> 
> >>> Den 2015-09-30 kl. 13:05, skrev Paul Eggleton:
> >>>> On Wednesday 30 September 2015 03:10:56 Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Ulf Samuelsson <ulf at emagii.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> -LICENSE = "GPLv2 & LGPLv2 & GFDLv1.1"
> >>>>> +LICENSE = "GPLv2 & LGPLv2 & GFDL-1.1"
> >>>> 
> >>>> IIRC both are correct
> >>> 
> >>> I don't think we have an SPDXLICENSEMAP entry for this though, so it
> >>> won't
> >>> be being mapped (unlike GPLv2 -> GPL-2.0).
> >>> 
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre