On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:26:50PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 21:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > * original recipe added by RP in fc128ab1e4fec27d44cebfa690a9bc233eda0caf > > was saying GPL > > * later it was changed to GPLv2 > > * COPYING.GPL was added to reflect that > > * meta-oe has similar recipe with MIT license and even more scripts, so > > lets change LICENSE here too > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> > > --- > > meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf/COPYING.GPL | 339 > > --------------------- > > meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf_1.0.bb | 8 +- > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 343 deletions(-) > > delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf/COPYING.GPL > > Er, I think we need to be a little more careful than this. Just because > you want something to be so, doesn't make it happen just like that... > > Looking at the commit, I've just copied the license from the original > source which was a GPLv2 recipe (udev). Where did mount.blacklist come > from originally? Is there evidence its MIT licensed? How did meta-oe > conclude this was MIT licensed?
sorry I'm not lawyer to decide if those 3 lines of code should be GPLv2 or MIT and I don't have any evidence either way.. (From common sense more lines were imported from meta-oe where they were marked as MIT). I think I was carefull, first warning in commit message (end kept original LICENSE) then extra patch on Koen's request to be clear about that change. Do we want 2 licenses in udev-extraconf or should we ask all devs which ever touched udev-extra-rules for permission to change it to GPLv2? Cheers, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
