[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openembedded-core
Subject:    [OE-core] [PATCH] udev-extraconf: change LICENSE to MIT
From:       koen () dominion ! thruhere ! net (Koen Kooi)
Date:       2012-07-31 12:46:40
Message-ID: 5861D2CF-C4A7-47E2-A355-C77DF52A2D3B () dominion ! thruhere ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


Op 31 jul. 2012, om 13:26 heeft Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at \
linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:

> On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 21:01 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > * original recipe added by RP in fc128ab1e4fec27d44cebfa690a9bc233eda0caf was \
> >                 saying GPL
> > * later it was changed to GPLv2
> > * COPYING.GPL was added to reflect that
> > * meta-oe has similar recipe with MIT license and even more scripts, so lets \
> > change LICENSE here too 
> > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa at gmail.com>
> > ---
> > meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf/COPYING.GPL |  339 ---------------------
> > meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf_1.0.bb      |    8 +-
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 343 deletions(-)
> > delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-extraconf/COPYING.GPL
> 
> Er, I think we need to be a little more careful than this. Just because
> you want something to be so, doesn't make it happen just like that...
> 
> Looking at the commit, I've just copied the license from the original
> source which was a GPLv2 recipe (udev). Where did mount.blacklist come
> from originally? Is there evidence its MIT licensed? How did meta-oe
> conclude this was MIT licensed?

It was written for oe-classic -> MIT licensed


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]