On 7/25/11 8:54 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> +/* Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Wind River Systems, Inc. >> + * >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >> + * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 >> as >> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
I believe we're flexibly with the license statement in the file.. (Just verifying it to make sure I am allowed to change it.) I personally don't believe it's a big deal, but I understand the concern. Is there a different wording/license statement that would make more sense? My concern is that if we make the license dynamic it's a lot of pain for no real technical reason. I'd like to see if we (WR) can just put a statement on it that it can be used for any purpose -- whatever the legalize is for that -- and if that would satisfy your concerns. (BTW: Our goal of course is NOT to change the license of the produced binary in any way...) > This is going to cause LGPL 2.1 content to appear in the output > packages. For things like binutils this is probably not a big deal, > since they are GPL already, but for ncurses (previously MIT-licensed) > this is a potentially significant change. In any case I think there > needs to be some way of making sure that the LICENSE is updated > appropriately when this file is included. > > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core