Le Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:10:25 -0700, "Jason Self" <ja...@librewrt.org> a écrit :
> ralph.hem...@lantiq.com wrote: > > > ... I would appreciate this solution. > > This makes it much more easy for us to create free SDK's. > > > > By default the Package License should be GPL. Only non GPL packages > > will add the additional License information to their feeds > > Makefiles ? > > Just to be clear, the GPL is not the only free software license. > There are many, some of which have been reviewed at [1]. Some packages even include code under different licenses: e2fsprogs-1.40.11.tar.gz - GPL v2 - LGPL v2 for lib/ext2fs & lib/e2p - BSD style for lib/uuid - MIT style for lib/et & lib/ss ppp-2.4.4.tar.gz - 'chat' utility is public domain - pppd, pppstats & pppdump are BSD style - some plugins under GPL > Just because something doesn't use the GPL, it doesn't automatically > follow that it's not free software. That's decided on whether the > user has four specific freedoms [2]. > > I wonder if it would be better to instead include something that > indicates whether it is (or is not) free software. > > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > [2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html And why not use a non-free repository like Debian does? -Raphaël _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
