Hi; Am Sonntag, 15. Mai 2011, um 15:08:12 schrieb davidMbrooke: > > > 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.
Ok. > 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. Yes, it's overdue (and it hasn't delayed 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? > > > > 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. My fault to be too short and therefor unclear. - We should add a license (after consensus) to the images. - The proposed license for the wiki is fine with me. > > > 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. No need to inverstigate the docbook license IMHO. My question was if we have to ask those who has written the docbook-based contents individually for permission (Arne, Martin, Jacques, EricS, ETitl, Luis et al)...? As I said we've never discussed license issues before, and I'm confident they'll agree, if we add the license to the wiki you proposed - but better be safe than then sorry. Hopefully they will reply to this thread - I'll try to contact anyone left and ask. 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
