Hi kp, On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 01:06 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > Hi David; > > I've been afraid that some day this discussion will come up on the list :) Sorry about that... :-) > > 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.
I will create a "License" page in the Wiki, and use that (and its "Discuss" page) to capture my understanding. I did not mean to imply that this should delay or change 4.0 in any way, just that it is 4.x (rather than 3.x) which should be our focus for understanding and clarification. > > 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 :) If we simply add e.g. the GPLv2 "COPYING" file to each disk image then we would be declaring that license applies to LEAF Bering-uClibc 4.0, which would be premature if there is no consensus. I guess we should do nothing for the 4.0 release. > > 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. I will review the DocBook source for any license statements, but I propose to declare that the cc-by-sa license applies to the Wiki content if there are no objections. > > 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 dMb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
