diff mbox

[v3,2/2] docs/manual: add section about patch licensing

Message ID 1456401075-16948-3-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net
State Superseded
Headers show

Commit Message

Luca Ceresoli Feb. 25, 2016, 11:51 a.m. UTC
Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
Cc: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Cc: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Steve Calfee <stevecalfee@gmail.com>

---

Note: although there are only wording improvements since v2, I did not
carry the Acked-by from Thomas and Arnout because the topic is
delicate and Yann explicitly nacked the patch.

Changes v2 -> v3:
 - various wording improvements (Yann, Arnout).

Changes v1 -> v2:
 - "they modify" -> "they apply to" (Thomas).
---
 docs/manual/legal-notice.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++--
 docs/manual/patch-policy.txt |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Yann E. MORIN Feb. 25, 2016, 8:16 p.m. UTC | #1
Luca, All,

On 2016-02-25 12:51 +0100, Luca Ceresoli spake thusly:
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
> Cc: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
> Cc: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
> Cc: Steve Calfee <stevecalfee@gmail.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> Note: although there are only wording improvements since v2, I did not
> carry the Acked-by from Thomas and Arnout because the topic is
> delicate and Yann explicitly nacked the patch.

IIRC, I NAKed it because, in case of proprietary packages, the patches
can only be available under the FLOSS license of the package they are
applied to.

[--SNIP--]
> +==== Patches to packages
> +
> +Buildroot is bundled with a set of patches that are applied to
> +packages to fix cross-compilation or other issues. See
> +xref:patch-policy[] for the technical details.
> +
> +These patches are effectively a derived work of the package they are
> +applied to, and so they are released under the same license as the
> +software they apply to. They are not distributed under the Buildroot
> +license.

Why not repeat the same sentence as the one from the previous patch?

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
Luca Ceresoli Feb. 26, 2016, 10:08 p.m. UTC | #2
Dear Yann,

On 25/02/2016 21:16, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Luca, All,
> 
> On 2016-02-25 12:51 +0100, Luca Ceresoli spake thusly:
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>> Cc: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
>> Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
>> Cc: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
>> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
>> Cc: Steve Calfee <stevecalfee@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Note: although there are only wording improvements since v2, I did not
>> carry the Acked-by from Thomas and Arnout because the topic is
>> delicate and Yann explicitly nacked the patch.
> 
> IIRC, I NAKed it because, in case of proprietary packages, the patches
> can only be available under the FLOSS license of the package they are
> applied to.

Yup. I hurried to resend the previous patch (affecting COPYING) and
didn't quite address your comments on this one. Sorry about that, I did
it just now.

> 
> [--SNIP--]
>> +==== Patches to packages
>> +
>> +Buildroot is bundled with a set of patches that are applied to
>> +packages to fix cross-compilation or other issues. See
>> +xref:patch-policy[] for the technical details.
>> +
>> +These patches are effectively a derived work of the package they are
>> +applied to, and so they are released under the same license as the
>> +software they apply to. They are not distributed under the Buildroot
>> +license.
> 
> Why not repeat the same sentence as the one from the previous patch?

Because this is the manual, and I wanted it to be less legalese and more
humanese/hackerese... and I felt like explaining the reason ("patches
are effectively a derived work...").

But your suggestion is quite good, and it definitely ensures the manual
doesn't contradict COPYING! :) And actually they mostly state the same
things, only in a different order and with different wording.

Unless others suggest differently, I'll take your suggestion for v4.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt b/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
index 0a91c37..6973cf5 100644
--- a/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
+++ b/docs/manual/legal-notice.txt
@@ -134,11 +134,13 @@  Buildroot, with the name used in the manifest files:
   http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html[
   Apache License, version 2.0];
 
+[[legal-info-buildroot]]
 === Complying with the Buildroot license
 
 Buildroot itself is an open source software, released under the
-http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html[GNU General Public
-License, version 2] or (at your option) any later version.
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html[GNU General
+Public License, version 2] or (at your option) any later version, with
+the exception of the package patches detailed below.
 However, being a build system, it is not normally part of the end product:
 if you develop the root filesystem, kernel, bootloader or toolchain for a
 device, the code of Buildroot is only present on the development machine, not
@@ -159,3 +161,14 @@  material that must be redistributed.
 
 Keep in mind that this is only the Buildroot developers' opinion, and you
 should consult your legal department or lawyer in case of any doubt.
+
+==== Patches to packages
+
+Buildroot is bundled with a set of patches that are applied to
+packages to fix cross-compilation or other issues. See
+xref:patch-policy[] for the technical details.
+
+These patches are effectively a derived work of the package they are
+applied to, and so they are released under the same license as the
+software they apply to. They are not distributed under the Buildroot
+license.
diff --git a/docs/manual/patch-policy.txt b/docs/manual/patch-policy.txt
index d50c971..5a1fe4f 100644
--- a/docs/manual/patch-policy.txt
+++ b/docs/manual/patch-policy.txt
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@  If something goes wrong in the steps _3_ or _4_, then the build fails.
 === Format and licensing of the package patches
 
 Patches are released under the same license as the software they apply
-to.
+to (see xref:legal-info-buildroot[]).
 
 A message explaining what the patch does, and why it is needed, should
 be added in the header commentary of the patch.