On 2014-09-17 02:20, Khem Raj wrote:
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Carlos Rafael Giani
d...@pseudoterminal.org mailto:d...@pseudoterminal.org wrote:
On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
Hi Carlos/All
I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = commercial was added to
On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
Hi Carlos/All
I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = commercial was added to
meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:11:46AM +0200, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote:
On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
Hi Carlos/All
I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = commercial was added to
meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
in initial commit and has been carried over
On 2014-09-16 23:33, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:11:46AM +0200, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote:
On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
Hi Carlos/All
I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = commercial was added to
meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Carlos Rafael Giani d...@pseudoterminal.org
wrote:
On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
Hi Carlos/All
I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = commercial was added to
meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
in initial commit and has been
Hi Carlos/All
I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = commercial was added to
meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here
