Hi, In my professional life I have recently been researching the terms of the various Open Source licenses and I'm thinking that we should do more to clarify the license(s) which apply to LEAF releases, in particular Bering-uClibc 4.0.
Obviously we mostly inherit licenses from the upstream sources, so GNU GPL v2 for the Linux kernel, Busybox, Shorewall and LGPL for uClibc and so on. However there are some "custom" additions like buildtool where the author might want to declare that a different license applies. My thoughts: - Shouldn't we include a copy of the GPL in all of the disk images, because the GPL says that every user "...should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program"? - Shouldn't we add a License statement / page to the Wiki which clarifies which license (or licenses) applies to LEAF? With specific reference to the Wiki, there is currently no statement about the license which applies to the Wiki text itself. For my own contributions I would prefer to apply the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) which is what Wikipedia uses. However there is some text imported from the previous DocBook documentation which may use a different license. Is there already consensus on which license applies to LEAF and the documentation? I have failed to find a clear statement so far. Thanks, davidMbrooke ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
