barebox: fix license information

Submitted by Simon Dawson on Aug. 22, 2012, 12:47 p.m.

Details

Message ID 1345639653-17544-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com
State Accepted
Headers show

Commit Message

Simon Dawson Aug. 22, 2012, 12:47 p.m.
From: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>

The barebox license is GPLv2, and not GPLv2+.

Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
---
 boot/barebox/barebox.mk |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Thomas Petazzoni Aug. 22, 2012, 5:49 p.m.
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
Luca Ceresoli Aug. 22, 2012, 8:18 p.m.
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
Arnout Vandecappelle Aug. 26, 2012, 10 p.m.
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
Simon Dawson Aug. 28, 2012, 7:17 a.m.
Hi Arnout, Luca, Thomas. Thanks for your help with this.

As suggested, I'll change the license information to "GPLv2 with exceptions".

Simon.

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

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)),)