barebox: fix license information
PATCH v2 1/1 barebox: fix license information
From: Simon Dawson <[email protected]>
The barebox license should be "GPLv2 with exceptions", and not GPLv2.
---
v2: Changed license information as suggested on mailing list.
boot/barebox/barebox.mk | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
boot/barebox/barebox.mk +1 -1
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ BAREBOX_SOURCE = barebox-$(BAREBOX_VERSION).tar.bz2 BAREBOX_SITE = http://www.barebox.org/download/ endif -BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2 +BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2 with exceptions BAREBOX_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING ifneq ($(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR)),)
Signature · 1 line
1.7.9.5
PATCH v2 1/1 barebox: fix license information
Quoted 16 lines · spdawson at gmail.com
From: Simon Dawson <[email protected]>
The barebox license should be "GPLv2 with exceptions", and not GPLv2.
Signed-off-by Simon Dawson <[email protected]>---
v2: Changed license information as suggested on mailing list.boot/barebox/barebox.mk | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)boot/barebox/barebox.mk +0
-0
boot/barebox/barebox.mk BAREBOX_SOURCE = barebox-$(BAREBOX_VERSION).tar.bz2 · line 26
Quoted 8 lines
boot/barebox/barebox.mk +1
-1@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ BAREBOX_SOURCE = barebox-$(BAREBOX_VERSION).tar.bz2 BAREBOX_SITE = http://www.barebox.org/download/ endif -BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2 +BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2 with exceptions BAREBOX_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING ifneq ($(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR)),)
Luca
PATCH v2 1/1 barebox: fix license information
In reply to spdawson at gmail.comLe Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:19:47 +0100,
spdawson at gmail.com a ?crit :
Quoted 2 lines
+BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2 with exceptions
BAREBOX_LICENSE_FILES= COPYING
U-Boot has a similar exception, so shouldn't we be doing the same?
Also, uboot.mk mentions that the license is GPLv2+, but the U-Boot COPYING file says:
U-Boot is Free Software. It is copyrighted by Wolfgang Denk and
many others who contributed code (see the actual source code for details). You can redistribute U-Boot and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. Most of it can also be distributed, at your option, under any later version of the GNU General Public License -- see individual files for exceptions.
So I guess that formally speaking U-Boot is GPLv2 only, and not GPLv2+.
Thomas
Signature · 4 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com
PATCH v2 1/1 barebox: fix license information
Quoted 19 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Le Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:19:47 +0100,
spdawson at gmail.com a ?crit :Quoted 2 lines
+BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2 with exceptions
BAREBOX_LICENSE_FILES= COPYINGU-Boot has a similar exception, so shouldn't we be doing the same?
Also, uboot.mk mentions that the license is GPLv2+, but the U-Boot COPYING file says:
U-Boot is Free Software. It is copyrighted by Wolfgang Denk and
many others who contributed code (see the actual source code for details). You can redistribute U-Boot and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. Most of it can also be distributed, at your option, under any later version of the GNU General Public License -- see individual files for exceptions.
Quoted 1 line
So I guess that formally speaking U-Boot is GPLv2 only, and not GPLv2+.
Given the large number of special cases we've encountered in the licensing
support, I propose that we require one or two Acks on all licensing patches. And for new packages, the Acks should explicitly mention that it Acks the license information. Failing the Acks, it could still be committed with a flag that it needs review, e.g. "GPLv2+ (needs review)".
I think for the legal-info, we should really be conservative. Now that it
exists, people will rely on it. And if they rely on the wrong information, they could be in trouble.
OTOH, the trouble would probably just be from your own legal department...
Copyright holders who create complex, inconsistent licenses are very unlikely to try to enforce them. And also the FSFE and similar organisations will just go for the obvious GPL violations. So maybe I'm just being unnecessarily paranoid here...
Regards,
Arnout
Signature · 6 lines
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286540 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
PATCH v2 1/1 barebox: fix license information
Le Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:48:08 +0200,
Arnout Vandecappelle <[email protected]> a ?crit :
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Also, uboot.mk mentions that the license is GPLv2+, but the U-Boot COPYING file says:
U-Boot is Free Software. It is copyrighted by Wolfgang Denk and
many others who contributed code (see the actual source code for details). You can redistribute U-Boot and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. Most of it can also be distributed, at your option, under any later version of the GNU General Public License -- see individual files for exceptions.Quoted 1 line
So I guess that formally speaking U-Boot is GPLv2 only, and not GPLv2+.
Given the large number of special cases we've encountered in the licensing
support, I propose that we require one or two Acks on all licensing patches. And for new packages, the Acks should explicitly mention that it Acks the license information. Failing the Acks, it could still be committed with a flag that it needs review, e.g. "GPLv2+ (needs review)".
Quoted 3 lines
I think for the legal-info, we should really be conservative. Now that it
exists, people will rely on it. And if they rely on the wrong information, they could be in trouble.
Well, this means having to wait even more before being able to commit a new package, I'm not sure I like to see more "bureaucracy" when it comes to getting patches applied. Instead, getting things in movement usually encourages people to react when something looks wrong. I.e, if I had left out the barebox and u-boot patches from Simon, maybe nobody would have commented on them... The fact that I took action by committing them got the discussion started, we fixed the problems, and we're good.
Quoted 5 lines
OTOH, the trouble would probably just be from your own legal department...
Copyright holders who create complex, inconsistent licenses are very unlikely to try to enforce them. And also the FSFE and similar organisations will just go for the obvious GPL violations. So maybe I'm just being unnecessarily paranoid here...
Just like we don't provide any guarantees of the proper functioning of Buildroot, we don't provide any guarantees of the correctness of the license information. Now, of course, it's up to us as a community to ensure that Buildroot works fine (it builds what you need) and has the most correct licensing information as possible, but we're not trying to provide 100% guarantees here.
"Linux is evolution, not intelligent design" :-)
Thomas
Signature · 4 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com
PATCH v2 1/1 barebox: fix license information
Quoted 26 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Le Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:48:08 +0200,
Arnout Vandecappelle<[email protected]> a ?crit :Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Also, uboot.mk mentions that the license is GPLv2+, but the U-Boot COPYING file says:
U-Boot is Free Software. It is copyrighted by Wolfgang Denk and
many others who contributed code (see the actual source code for details). You can redistribute U-Boot and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. Most of it can also be distributed, at your option, under any later version of the GNU General Public License -- see individual files for exceptions.Quoted 1 line
So I guess that formally speaking U-Boot is GPLv2 only, and not GPLv2+.
Given the large number of special cases we've encountered in the licensing
support, I propose that we require one or two Acks on all licensing patches. And for new packages, the Acks should explicitly mention that it Acks the license information. Failing the Acks, it could still be committed with a flag that it needs review, e.g. "GPLv2+ (needs review)".Quoted 3 lines
I think for the legal-info, we should really be conservative. Now that it
exists, people will rely on it. And if they rely on the wrong information, they could be in trouble.
Quoted 8 lines
Well, this means having to wait even more before being able to commit a new package, I'm not sure I like to see more "bureaucracy" when it comes to getting patches applied. Instead, getting things in movement usually encourages people to react when something looks wrong. I.e, if I had left out the barebox and u-boot patches from Simon, maybe nobody would have commented on them... The fact that I took action by committing them got the discussion started, we fixed the problems, and we're good.
That's why I say: commit it with (needs review). That will attract more
reviews than having it either without legal-info, or with the wrong legal-info.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
OTOH, the trouble would probably just be from your own legal department...
Copyright holders who create complex, inconsistent licenses are very unlikely to try to enforce them. And also the FSFE and similar organisations will just go for the obvious GPL violations. So maybe I'm just being unnecessarily paranoid here...
Quoted 6 lines
Just like we don't provide any guarantees of the proper functioning of Buildroot, we don't provide any guarantees of the correctness of the license information. Now, of course, it's up to us as a community to ensure that Buildroot works fine (it builds what you need) and has the most correct licensing information as possible, but we're not trying to provide 100% guarantees here.
The difference is that buildroot users are likely to test the resulting
rootfs, but are very unlikely to look a second time at the output of legal-info. It's very difficult to "test" the legal-info - all you have is "code review". For me, the wrong information in legal-info is an order of magnitude worse than no legal-info at all.
That said, none of my dozens of customers ever gave a whit about licenses.
The most they'd do is verify that there's no GPL linked against the app. So after this post I'll shut up about it.
Regards,
Arnout
Signature · 6 lines
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286540 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
PATCH v2 1/1 barebox: fix license information
Quoted 63 lines · Arnout Vandecappelle
Quoted 33 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Le Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:48:08 +0200,
Arnout Vandecappelle<[email protected]> a ?crit :Quoted 24 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Also, uboot.mk mentions that the license is GPLv2+, but the U-Boot COPYING file says:
U-Boot is Free Software. It is copyrighted by Wolfgang Denk and
many others who contributed code (see the actual source code for details). You can redistribute U-Boot and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. Most of it can also be distributed, at your option, under any later version of the GNU General Public License -- see individual files for exceptions.Quoted 2 lines
So I guess that formally speaking U-Boot is GPLv2 only, and not GPLv2+.
Given the large number of special cases we've encountered in the
licensing
support, I propose that we require one or two Acks on all licensing patches.
And for new packages, the Acks should explicitly mention that it Acks the
license information. Failing the Acks, it could still be committed with
a flag that it needs review, e.g. "GPLv2+ (needs review)".Quoted 5 lines
I think for the legal-info, we should really be conservative. Now
that it
exists, people will rely on it. And if they rely on the wrong information,
they could be in trouble.Quoted 8 lines
Well, this means having to wait even more before being able to commit a new package, I'm not sure I like to see more "bureaucracy" when it comes to getting patches applied. Instead, getting things in movement usually encourages people to react when something looks wrong. I.e, if I had left out the barebox and u-boot patches from Simon, maybe nobody would have commented on them... The fact that I took action by committing them got the discussion started, we fixed the problems, and we're good.
That's why I say: commit it with (needs review). That will attract more
reviews than having it either without legal-info, or with the wrong legal-info.Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines
OTOH, the trouble would probably just be from your own legal
department...
Copyright holders who create complex, inconsistent licenses are very unlikely to try to enforce them. And also the FSFE and similar organisations
will just go for the obvious GPL violations. So maybe I'm just being unnecessarily paranoid here...Quoted 6 lines
Just like we don't provide any guarantees of the proper functioning of Buildroot, we don't provide any guarantees of the correctness of the license information. Now, of course, it's up to us as a community to ensure that Buildroot works fine (it builds what you need) and has the most correct licensing information as possible, but we're not trying to provide 100% guarantees here.
Quoted 5 lines
The difference is that buildroot users are likely to test the resulting
rootfs, but are very unlikely to look a second time at the output of legal-info. It's very difficult to "test" the legal-info - all you have is "code review". For me, the wrong information in legal-info is an order of magnitude worse than no legal-info at all.
I agree with Arnout here. If a feature is buggy, a user wanting to use it will probably be bitten by the bug and report it.
If a license is buggy, or even worse, if a user knows license definitions are not trustworthy, he will have to check them one by one, just as if they were not defined at all in BR. The whole legal-info would thus loose most of its usefulness.
These weeks my spare time is close to zero, but I do review license info patches as soon as I can. It takes 2 minutes in simple cases, 15 when things are complex, so it is definitely a little effort.
Luca
PATCH v2 1/1 barebox: fix license information
In reply to spdawson at gmail.comQuoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"spdawson" == spdawson <[email protected]> writes:
spdawson> From: Simon Dawson <[email protected]>
spdawson> The barebox license should be "GPLv2 with exceptions", and not GPLv2.
Committed, thanks.
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard