[2/2] docs: Added referenc to EUPL

The first European Union Public Licence

Signed-off-by: oli vogt <oli.vogt.pub01@gmail.com>
---
 docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

>>>>> "oli" == oli vogt <oli.vogt.pub01@gmail.com> writes:

This patch was listed as 2/2, but I don't seem to have received 1/2?

 > The first European Union Public Licence
 > Signed-off-by: oli vogt <oli.vogt.pub01@gmail.com>
 > ---
 >  docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 3 +++
 >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

 > diff --git a/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt b/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
 > index d4344b9..42a4a52 100644
 > --- a/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
 > +++ b/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
 > @@ -122,6 +122,9 @@ Buildroot, with the name used in the manifest files:
 >  * `Apache-2.0`:
 >    http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html[
 >    Apache License, version 2.0];
 > +* `EUPL-1`:
 > +  http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl.html[
 > +   The first European Union Public Licence];

Is that really a widely used license? I don't know of any sw licensed
under it and the string isn't present anywhere in Buildroot.

Hi Peter.

- Sorry about [2/2]. I'm still learning git.
 I'll submit a second patch if this is accepted. <
https://launchpad.net/nfcpy> uses EUPL.

- In general don't care much about legal issues but I thought that it can
just as well be included for completeness reasons.
 Its major feature, in my opinion, is that it is available in many
languages. It breaks up the english monotony ;-)

Kind regards, Olivier


On 26 May 2014 07:54, Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@uclibc.org> wrote:

> >>>>> "oli" == oli vogt <oli.vogt.pub01@gmail.com> writes:
>
> This patch was listed as 2/2, but I don't seem to have received 1/2?
>
>  > The first European Union Public Licence
>  > Signed-off-by: oli vogt <oli.vogt.pub01@gmail.com>
>  > ---
>  >  docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 3 +++
>  >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
>  > diff --git a/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt b/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
>  > index d4344b9..42a4a52 100644
>  > --- a/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
>  > +++ b/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
>  > @@ -122,6 +122,9 @@ Buildroot, with the name used in the manifest files:
>  >  * `Apache-2.0`:
>  >    http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html[
>  >    Apache License, version 2.0];
>  > +* `EUPL-1`:
>  > +  http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl.html[
>  > +   The first European Union Public Licence];
>
> Is that really a widely used license? I don't know of any sw licensed
> under it and the string isn't present anywhere in Buildroot.
>
> --
> Bye, Peter Korsgaard
>

Hi Olli,

 It would make more sense to submit this patch as part of a series adding a
package that actually uses the license.

 Also:

On 25/05/14 10:08, oli vogt wrote:
> The first European Union Public Licence
> 
> Signed-off-by: oli vogt <oli.vogt.pub01@gmail.com>
> ---
>  docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt b/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
> index d4344b9..42a4a52 100644
> --- a/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
> +++ b/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
> @@ -122,6 +122,9 @@ Buildroot, with the name used in the manifest files:
>  * `Apache-2.0`:
>    http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html[
>    Apache License, version 2.0];
> +* `EUPL-1`:

 spdx.org has EUPL-1.0 and EUPL-1.1. I expect only EUPL-1.1 is relevant.

> +  http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl.html[
> +   The first European Union Public Licence];

 "The first"? The website refers to it as v1.1. So I'd call it

European Union Public License, version 1.1


 Regards,
 Arnout

>  
>  == Complying with the Buildroot license
>  
>

Dear oli vogt,

On Sun, 25 May 2014 20:08:44 +1200, oli vogt wrote:
> The first European Union Public Licence
> 
> Signed-off-by: oli vogt <oli.vogt.pub01@gmail.com>
> ---
>  docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

Thanks for your patch. However, the feedback is that the patch is not
correct (not following the SPDX code for the EUPL license) and that we
prefer to wait to have one patch using this license to mention it in
our documentation.

I'll therefore mark your patch as Rejected in our patchwork system.

Thanks!

Thomas