| Message ID | 1396135140-1402-2-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
Dear Gustavo Zacarias, On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 20:19:00 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > Also add license files and docs license definition. > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> > --- > package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Applied, thanks, with one minor change. > +LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+, docs: GFDL1.2+ I've changed this to the more traditional: LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs) Though I'm wondering if: * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL. * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license, since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the license of their documentation. Cc'ing Luca and Yann to get an opinion on this. Thanks, Thomas
On 03/30/2014 06:30 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > I've changed this to the more traditional: > > LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs) > > Though I'm wondering if: > > * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL. > > * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license, > since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the > target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the > license of their documentation. > > Cc'ing Luca and Yann to get an opinion on this. At this point we nuke docs so +1 from me, i added it because i saw COPYING.* included it and there was one other package that mentions the FDL (valgrind). But yeah, it won't be in staging or target any time soon so +1 about the second point. Regards.
Dear Gustavo Zacarias, On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 07:22:43 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > At this point we nuke docs so +1 from me, i added it because i saw > COPYING.* included it and there was one other package that mentions the > FDL (valgrind). > But yeah, it won't be in staging or target any time soon so +1 about the > second point. So you can send a patch that removes it? :-) Thomas
Thomas, All, On 2014-03-30 11:30 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 20:19:00 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > > Also add license files and docs license definition. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> > > --- > > package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk | 5 +++-- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks, with one minor change. > > > +LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+, docs: GFDL1.2+ > > I've changed this to the more traditional: > > LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs) > > Though I'm wondering if: > > * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL. For the sake of consistency, yes.i For the records, however, SPDX does not list any 'or-later' for the GFDL: http://spdx.org/licenses/ --- GNU Free Documentation License v1.1 GFDL-1.1 GNU Free Documentation License v1.2 GFDL-1.2 GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 GFDL-1.3 GNU General Public License v1.0 only GPL-1.0 GNU General Public License v1.0 or later GPL-1.0+ GNU General Public License v2.0 only GPL-2.0 GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GPL-2.0+ --- But that is valid for an author to specify this 'or later', so OK for the 'GFDLv1.2+' > * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license, > since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the > target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the > license of their documentation. Well, if we're sure there's no installed doc, then we do not need this in the licensing info. But if in doubt, better let the user check on his side if the license indeed applies or not. Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
Hi Thomas, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Gustavo Zacarias, > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 20:19:00 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: >> Also add license files and docs license definition. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> >> --- >> package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk | 5 +++-- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks, with one minor change. > >> +LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+, docs: GFDL1.2+ > > I've changed this to the more traditional: > > LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs) > > Though I'm wondering if: > > * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL. Unless there is a good reason, we should the same style for all licenses. So, yes, we should use GFDLv1.2+. Or... We may sync with SPDX: GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1+, BSD-3-Clause, etc. > > * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license, > since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the > target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the > license of their documentation. I'm quite neutral on this point, but I would like at least a comment to make it clear that whoever added the license info has checked, not just missed the other license(s). Example: # The docs are GFDLv1.2+, but not installed LIBFOO_LICENSE = LGPLv3+
diff --git a/package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk b/package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk index f1c181f..f0b373b 100644 --- a/package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk +++ b/package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk @@ -4,10 +4,11 @@ # ################################################################################ -LIBCGICC_VERSION = 3.2.12 +LIBCGICC_VERSION = 3.2.13 LIBCGICC_SITE = $(BR2_GNU_MIRROR)/cgicc LIBCGICC_SOURCE = cgicc-$(LIBCGICC_VERSION).tar.gz -LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+ +LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+, docs: GFDL1.2+ +LIBCGICC_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING.LIB COPYING.DOC LIBCGICC_INSTALL_STAGING = YES LIBCGICC_AUTORECONF = YES LIBCGICC_CONFIG_SCRIPTS = cgicc-config
Also add license files and docs license definition. Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> --- package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)