[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