| Message ID | 1345639653-17544-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
Le Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:47:33 +0100, spdawson@gmail.com a écrit : > From: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com> > > The barebox license is GPLv2, and not GPLv2+. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com> Thanks, applied. However, the Barebox license, just like U-Boot license, has a special exception to allow proprietary standalone applications to be linked against parts of Barebox/U-Boot without having to be released under the GPL. Should be use "GPLv2 with exceptions"? Or something else? Thomas
Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Le Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:47:33 +0100, > spdawson@gmail.com a écrit : > >> From: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com> >> >> The barebox license is GPLv2, and not GPLv2+. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com> > > Thanks, applied. > > However, the Barebox license, just like U-Boot license, has a special > exception to allow proprietary standalone applications to be linked > against parts of Barebox/U-Boot without having to be released under the > GPL. Should be use "GPLv2 with exceptions"? Or something else? Ouch. Well, practically speaking, AFAIK we don't include standalone Barebox applications in Buildroot, so this a NOOP in our case. If a user includes such applications in their own copy of Busybox and build it with Buildroot, then we may kind of assume that user will take care of handling this case... But from a formal and "legally-technical" POV, this license has some exceptions to the original FSF text, so to be safe we should go that way. I have no strong opinions at this time of the day, but I generally think that when speaking legal, we should be as safe as possible. So I'm moderately convinced this is a "GPLv2 with exceptions". Other opinions are very welcome. Luca
On 08/22/12 22:18, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > I have no strong opinions at this time of the day, but I generally think > that when speaking legal, we should be as safe as possible. > So I'm moderately convinced this is a "GPLv2 with exceptions". I agree. The legalinfo is should make it easy to find the cases requiring special attention, and the "GPLv2 with exceptions" tag will flag it that way. Regards, Arnout
Hi Arnout, Luca, Thomas. Thanks for your help with this. As suggested, I'll change the license information to "GPLv2 with exceptions". Simon.
diff --git a/boot/barebox/barebox.mk b/boot/barebox/barebox.mk index 3641c1d..9550cdc 100644 --- a/boot/barebox/barebox.mk +++ b/boot/barebox/barebox.mk @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ BAREBOX_SOURCE = barebox-$(BAREBOX_VERSION).tar.bz2 BAREBOX_SITE = http://www.barebox.org/download/ endif -BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2+ +BAREBOX_LICENSE = GPLv2 BAREBOX_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING ifneq ($(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR)),)