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 :)
KP & David, There have been many license discussions on leaf-devel. Also, see our SF Trove for current licenses. http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=license&l=leaf-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net http://sourceforge.net/projects/leaf/#details > 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. -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes http://www.google.com/profiles/mhnoyes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
