[Buildroot] [RFC v2 16/31] linux: define license

Thomas De Schampheleire patrickdepinguin+buildroot at gmail.com
Fri Mar 9 20:12:56 UTC 2012


On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Luca Ceresoli <luca at lucaceresoli.net> wrote:
> Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>>
>> Lucas, All,
>>
>> On Wednesday 07 March 2012 21:58:16 Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli<luca at lucaceresoli.net>
>>> ---
>>>  linux/linux.mk |    2 ++
>>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/linux/linux.mk b/linux/linux.mk
>>> index ae236d4..e6f2388 100644
>>> --- a/linux/linux.mk
>>> +++ b/linux/linux.mk
>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>  #
>>>
>>>  ###############################################################################
>>>  LINUX_VERSION=$(call qstrip,$(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION))
>>> +LINUX_LICENSE = GPLv2-ONLY
>>
>> What's the point of giving the version 'v2' and stating 'only'?
>> I would rather see:
>>   values        meaning
>>   -------------------------------
>>   GPLv2         GPLv2 only
>>   GPLv2+        GPLv2 or later
>>   LGPLv2.1      LGPLv2.1 only
>>   LGPLv2.1+     LGPLv2.1 or later
>>   ...           ...
>
>
> When a project is GPL-licensed, it usually means it uses "either version X
> of
> the License, or (at your option) any later version". There are rare cases
> (Linux, Busybox, any other?) chose to use a specific version, no later
> version.
>
> So the "default" meaning of "GPLvX" is "GPL version X or later". Those rare
> cases that allow no upgrade are distinguished by adding "only".

I'm not sure this is correct. According to me, if the license file
just specifies GPL version 2, then it really is only version 2.
Only if the license file specifies the text 'or any later version, at
your option', then it is GPLv2+.

I think the distinction GPLv2 / GPLv2+ / GPLv3 / GPLv3+ etc. is
common, and can be reused.
So I agree with Yann here.

>
> This applies for example to:
> - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel
> - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directfb
> - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lzop
>
> I prefer to do the same, and use a concise definition for the most frequent
> case. Of course this is a personal preference.
>
> If we wanted to stay on the extra-safe side, we might use:
>  values         meaning
>  -------------------------------
>  GPLv2-ONLY     GPLv2 only
>  GPLv2+         GPLv2 or later
>  LGPLv2.1-ONLY  LGPLv2.1 only
>
>  LGPLv2.1+      LGPLv2.1 or later
>  ...            ...
> so there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Might that "+" sign create doubts in
> dummies reading it ("Hey, what's GPLv2+? a super-GPLv2?")?
>
> Your opinions?
>
> Luca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot


More information about the buildroot mailing list