Am Freitag, den 29.07.2011, 22:48 +0200 schrieb Andreas Mueller: > On Friday, July 29, 2011 09:01:05 PM Paul Menzel wrote: > > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:47:22 +0200 > > > > This license is listed online for example at the Web site of XFree86 [1], > > Debian [2]. No name of the license is mentioned there. Gentoo just uses > > »MIT« [3]. > > > > There are some packages in OpenEmbedded using `MIT-X` and I guess they > > refer to the same license. I prefer »X/MIT« derived from the chapter name > > of [1] »MIT/X Licenses«. > > > > [1] http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE5.html > > [2] > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/x11-xserver-utils/x11-xs > > erver-utils_7.6+3/x11-xserver-utils.copyright [3] > > http://gpo.zugaina.org/x11-apps/iceauth/euscan > oe-core seems to prefer MIT too [1].
They named the file name MIT. But a lot of `xorg*` packages seem to use `MIT-X`, especially `xorg-app/xorg-app-common.inc`. $ git grep MIT-X meta/classes/license.bbclass:SPDXLICENSEMAP[MIT-X] = "MIT" meta/recipes-graphics/xcb/libxcb.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xcb/xcb-proto.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-app/xorg-app-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-driver/xf86-driver-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-driver/xf86-video-omapfb_git.bb:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-font/xorg-font-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-lib/xorg-lib-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-proto/xorg-proto-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-util/xorg-util-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-xserver/xserver-xf86-common.inc:LICENSE = "MIT-X" meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-xserver/xserver-xf86-config_0.1.bb:LICENSE = "MIT-X" So is this patch superfluous, because `LICENSE` is defined in the include file? Regarding the name, in oe.dev most other recipes from The Open Group have `LICENSE = "MIT"`. Is it useful to set `LICENSE` in an include file? We should decide that first. > iceauth license looks same but appends additional sentence. Actually the wording is quite different besides the capitalized paragraph. > So if no objections I will coose MIT in next version of patch for > meta-oe. It is even inconsistent in oe-core, so I really do not care much. But first the question above needs to be answered. And Andreas, you could wait until I update the recipe in oe.dev and just copy it then to save you some time. Thanks, Paul > [1] > http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core/tree/meta/files/common-licenses/MIT
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel