2010/10/1 Maupin, Chase :
>
> I understand. How should we denote recipes that have dual licenses? I
> figured "GPLv2 NewBSD" mean it was either license. Perhaps this should be
> "GPLv2+NewBSD"?
The perl recipes use |
e.g.
libtest-pod-perl_1.42.bb:LICENSE = "Artistic|GPL"
BTW, if you feel li
ject: Re: [oe] [PATCH] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields
>
> On 09/25/2010 12:08 AM, Chase Maupin wrote:
>
> >
> > diff --git a/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> b/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> > index 35b0289..70e24a0 100644
> > --- a/recipes/auto
On 09/25/2010 12:08 AM, Chase Maupin wrote:
>
> diff --git a/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc b/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> index 35b0289..70e24a0 100644
> --- a/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> +++ b/recipes/autoconf/autoconf.inc
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> DESCRIPTION = "A package of M4 macros to prod
> -Original Message-
> From: Chase Maupin [mailto:chasemaupi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:09 AM
> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> Cc: Maupin, Chase
> Subject: [PATCH] recipe licenses: update recipe LICENSE fields
>
> * While verifying the licensing fo
* While verifying the licensing for the packages I am building
into my file system I found that for some packages the
LICENSE value set in the recipe was either incorrect or
generic and not detailed enough. This patch is my attempt
to update the LICENSE fields for these packages to match
