Patch file clarification & Co
Subsystems (2)
cover Patch file clarification & Co
Hi,
several Buildroot users reportedly asked details about how the patches bundled with Buildroot are licensed.
Following the discussion during the Buildroot Developer Days today, this small series is aimed at clarifying patch licensing in the places where it makes sense: COPYING, the manual and the legal-info output.
Note that patches are not saved by 'make legal-info' in current Buildroot, but there's a patchset by Yann E. Morin to add this feature. Patch 5 of the present series applies to legal-info, and it only applies on top of Yann's series (it would be useless on amster anyway). Patches 1-4 apply also on current master.
Luca Ceresoli (5):
Update copyright year
docs/manual: slightly clarify patch licensing
COPYING: add exception about patch licensing docs/manual: add section about patch licensing
legal-info: explicitly state how patches are licensed
COPYING | 10 ++++++++++ Makefile | 2 +- docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++-- docs/manual/patch-policy.txt | 4 ++-- support/legal-info/README.header | 2 +- 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
PATCH 1/5 Update copyright year
--- Makefile | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Makefile +1 -1
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ # # Copyright (C) 1999-2005 by Erik Andersen <[email protected]> # Copyright (C) 2006-2014 by the Buildroot developers <[email protected]> -# Copyright (C) 2014-2015 by the Buildroot developers <[email protected]> +# Copyright (C) 2014-2016 by the Buildroot developers <[email protected]> # # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
PATCH 2/5 docs/manual: slightly clarify patch licensing
In reply to Luca CeresoliAdding a patch is a modification to Buildroot. Thus this sentence might be interpreted as "Patches are released under the Buildroot license".
Being a legal matter, the last thing we want is to be ambiguous. Reword the sentence to avoid any misunderstandings.
--- docs/manual/patch-policy.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt +2 -2
@@ -90,8 +90,8 @@ If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails. === Format and licensing of the package patches -Patches are released under the same license as the software that is -modified. +Patches are released under the same license as the software that they +modify. A message explaining what the patch does, and why it is needed, should be added in the header commentary of the patch.
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
PATCH 2/5 docs/manual: slightly clarify patch licensing
Luca,
Quoted 16 lines · Luca Ceresoli
Adding a patch is a modification to Buildroot. Thus this sentence might be interpreted as "Patches are released under the Buildroot license".
Being a legal matter, the last thing we want is to be ambiguous. Reword the sentence to avoid any misunderstandings.
Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>--- docs/manual/patch-policy.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)docs/manual/patch-policy.txt +0
-0
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails. · line 94
Quoted 7 lines
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt +2
-2@@ -90,8 +90,8 @@ If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails. === Format and licensing of the package patches -Patches are released under the same license as the software that is -modified. +Patches are released under the same license as the software that they +modify.
"as the software that they apply to" ?
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 2/5 docs/manual: slightly clarify patch licensing
Hi Thomas,
Quoted 20 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Luca,
Quoted 17 lines · Luca Ceresoli
Adding a patch is a modification to Buildroot. Thus this sentence might be interpreted as "Patches are released under the Buildroot license".
Being a legal matter, the last thing we want is to be ambiguous. Reword the sentence to avoid any misunderstandings.
Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>--- docs/manual/patch-policy.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)docs/manual/patch-policy.txt +0
-0@@ -90,8 +90,8 @@ If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails.
Quoted 8 lines
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails. · line 94
Quoted 6 lines
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt +2
-2=== Format and licensing of the package patches -Patches are released under the same license as the software that is -modified. +Patches are released under the same license as the software that they +modify."as the software that they apply to" ?
Indeed, they don't modify any file, patch does it! :)
Seriously, your version is better. We can even ditch "that":
"as the software they apply to".
Will fix and resend.
Signature · 1 line
Luca
PATCH 3/5 COPYING: add exception about patch licensing
In reply to Luca CeresoliSeveral people have been asking what is the license of the patches provided by Buildroot. COPYING is the authoritative place to state this.
--- COPYING | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
COPYING +10 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@ +Except for the below exception, Buildroot is licensed under the GNU +General Public License, version 2, whose text is reported below. + +Exception: + +- Patches provided by Buildroot for packages are released under the + same license as the software that they modify. + +----------------------------------------------------------------- + GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
PATCH 3/5 COPYING: add exception about patch licensing
Dear Luca Ceresoli,
Quoted 13 lines · Luca Ceresoli
Several people have been asking what is the license of the patches provided by Buildroot. COPYING is the authoritative place to state this.
Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>--- COPYING | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)COPYING +0
-0
COPYING line 2
Quoted 2 lines
COPYING +2
-0@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@ +Except for the below exception, Buildroot is licensed under the GNU +General Public License, version 2, whose text is reported below.
is "reported" the right word here ?
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 4/5 docs/manual: add section about patch licensing
In reply to Luca Ceresoli--- docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++-- docs/manual/patch-policy.txt | 2 +- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
docs/manual/legal-notice.txt +14 -2
@@ -131,11 +131,13 @@ Buildroot, with the name used in the manifest files: http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html[ Apache License, version 2.0]; +[[legal-info-buildroot]] === Complying with the Buildroot license Buildroot itself is an open source software, released under the -http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html[GNU General Public -License, version 2] or (at your option) any later version. +http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html[GNU General +Public License, version 2] or (at your option) any later version, with +the exception of the package patches detailed below. However, being a build system, it is not normally part of the end product: if you develop the root filesystem, kernel, bootloader or toolchain for a device, the code of Buildroot is only present on the development machine, not
@@ -156,3 +158,13 @@ material that must be redistributed. Keep in mind that this is only the Buildroot developers' opinion, and you should consult your legal department or lawyer in case of any doubt. + +==== Patches to packages + +Buildroot is bundled with a set of patches that it applies to packages +to fix cross-compilation or other issues. See xref:patch-policy[] for +the technical details. + +These patches are effectively a derived work of the upstream package, +and they are released under the same license as the software that they +modify. They are not distributed under the Buildroot license.
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt +1 -1
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails. === Format and licensing of the package patches Patches are released under the same license as the software that they -modify. +modify (see xref:legal-info-buildroot[]). A message explaining what the patch does, and why it is needed, should be added in the header commentary of the patch.
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
PATCH 4/5 docs/manual: add section about patch licensing
Dear Luca Ceresoli,
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails. · line 94
Quoted 9 lines · Luca Ceresoli
Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>--- docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++-- docs/manual/patch-policy.txt | 2 +- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)Patches are released under the same license as the software that they
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt +1
-1-modify. +modify (see xref:legal-info-buildroot[]).
apply to ?
Other than that:
Thanks!
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 4/5 docs/manual: add section about patch licensing
Hi Thomas,
Quoted 9 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Dear Luca Ceresoli,
Quoted 5 lines · Luca Ceresoli
Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>--- docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++-- docs/manual/patch-policy.txt | 2 +- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Quoted 5 lines
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails. · line 94
Quoted 3 lines
Patches are released under the same license as the software that they
docs/manual/patch-policy.txt +1
-1-modify. +modify (see xref:legal-info-buildroot[]).apply to ?
Of course, queued for v2.
Signature · 1 line
Luca
PATCH 5/5 legal-info: explicitly state how patches are licensed
In reply to Luca Ceresoli--- support/legal-info/README.header | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
support/legal-info/README.header +1 -1
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ This material is composed of the following items. sources/ subdirectory (except for the non-redistributable packages, which have not been saved). Patches that were applied are also saved, along with a file named 'series' that lists the patches in the order they were - applied. + applied. Patches are under the same license as the original package. * A manifest file listing the configured packages and related information. * The license text of the packages; they have been saved in the licenses/ subdirectory.
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
PATCH 5/5 legal-info: explicitly state how patches are licensed
Dear Luca Ceresoli,
Quoted 5 lines · Luca Ceresoli
Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>Cc "Yann E. MORIN" <[email protected]>--- support/legal-info/README.header | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 5/5 legal-info: explicitly state how patches are licensed
In reply to Luca CeresoliLuca, All,
On 2016-02-01 15:52 +0100, Luca Ceresoli spake thusly:
Quoted 2 lines
Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>Cc "Yann E. MORIN" <[email protected]>
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
Quoted 20 lines
--- support/legal-info/README.header | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)support/legal-info/README.header +1
-1@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ This material is composed of the following items. sources/ subdirectory (except for the non-redistributable packages, which have not been saved). Patches that were applied are also saved, along with a file named 'series' that lists the patches in the order they were - applied. + applied. Patches are under the same license as the original package. * A manifest file listing the configured packages and related information. * The license text of the packages; they have been saved in the licenses/ subdirectory.Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
Signature · 6 lines
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'