Hi David; I've been afraid that some day this discussion will come up on the list :)
Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2011, um 20:31:58 schrieb davidMbrooke: > 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. I confess I have no idea about all the licenses in general and the pros and cons speficially. Maybe you can give a short summarize as decision help. But I don't like to move 4.0 into the future until the license question has been solved. I think it does need some serious thoughts and it will take some time to find an answer that we all agree on. > 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? Yes to both :) > 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. I'm not aware that any docbook content has been written with a special license in mind. Is it necessary to ask the original authors individually? Anyway I think the license sound good and reasonable for the wiki content, at least as far as I'm concerned. > Is there already consensus on which license applies to LEAF and the > documentation? I have failed to find a clear statement so far. There is AFAIK no consens yet. kp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
