[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/3] Support for out-of-tree Buildroot customization
Yann E. MORIN
yann.morin.1998 at free.fr
Thu Sep 12 22:07:57 UTC 2013
Thomas, All,
On 2013-09-12 20:33 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:25:40 +0000, ANDY KENNEDY wrote:
>
> > This sounds much like the way Linux does things for the IP related
> > drivers. Is that the intent we are going for (personally, I think this
> > is a GREAT idea, as it allows companies to have IP related widgets in
> > BuildRoot without the fear of being REQUIRED to push back their secret
> > sauce)?
> >
> > If that is what you intend, you have my vote!
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "IP related drivers". Do you mean
> proprietary drivers?
>
> It is true that the BR2_EXTERNAL thing raises a licensing question:
> should the BR2_EXTERNAL contents also be released under GPLv2, like the
> rest of Buildroot? Do we really want the root filesystem overlays and
> other highly project-specific contents be released under GPLv2 ?
IANAL, this is not legal advice, talk to your lawyer.
Here are however my toughts on this:
1- all the Config.in and package.mk files, plus the external.mk file,
and all other files sourced or otherwise included by a file from
Buildroot (and thus use Buildroot's infrastructure) could be
considered a derived work of Buildroot, and thus must be licensed
with a compatible license,
2- the defconfigs could be considered as what the GPL identifies as the
"scripts used to control compilation and installation of the
executable", since without the .config file, an end-user can not
reproduce the executable(s),
3- everything else might be considered not a derived work of Buildroot,
and might not be required to be licensed with a license compatible
with Buildroot's license.
Explanations:
1- It's not because it is to be licensed under a license compatible with
the Buildroot license that it *has* to be distributed. Just that if
it *is* distributed, the licensing terms on that should be compatible
with Buildroot's licensing terms.
2- That's because Buildroot will most probably build a GPL/LGPL program
that will end up in the ytarget that this applies, because of the
license of those programs, not because of Buildroot's license. Even
if Buildroot was under a different license, this would still apply as
long as a GPL/LGPL program ends up in the target.
3- By "everything else", I mean: a package (in Buildroot's terminology:
the Config.in and associated .mk file) that directly embbeds the source
files (.c and .h and ...) for this package (like the host-mkpasswd).
These source files can not be considered a derived work of Buildroot,
so Buildroot's license does not apply to those.
So, I think the make legal-stuff should descend into BR2_EXTERNAL, as if
it was an integral part of Buildroot.
BR2_EXTERNAL is here *just* to separate parts of the recipes from the
upstream ones, as a mean to clearly separate local changes from the
upstream reference.
But again: IANAL, this is not legal advice, talk to your legal counsel.
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
--
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
| Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
More information about the buildroot
mailing list