[Buildroot] [PATCHv2 1/2] getent: new package
thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com
Mon Aug 18 14:52:48 UTC 2014
Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:50:57 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> How do you conclude this license?
uclibc: there is no license specific in the script itself, so by
default it's the same license as the entire project, i.e LGPLv2.1+
glibc: the header comment in nss/getent.c is clear: it's under
> Isn't this dependent on the case glibc versus uclibc/musl ? Or do each
> of these use the same license?
See above :)
> Also, shouldn't we specify GETENT_LICENSE_FILES and make sure the
> appropriate license text is present?
Which license text file should be used? In neither of the uclibc/musl
or glibc cases we have access to the license text. I can include a
COPYING file in package/getent/, but that's going to be 100x times
larger than the getent script :)
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
More information about the buildroot