From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from stoexhub03.domain01.net (STOEXHUB03.domain01.net [83.145.59.144]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEF4E01358 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ad.chargestorm.se (85.229.138.125) by stoexhub03.domain01.net (10.12.10.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:40:00 +0100 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:40:02 +0100 From: Anders Darander To: Message-ID: <20111213094002.GA6336@ad.chargestorm.se> Mail-Followup-To: poky@yoctoproject.org References: <4EE4D5FA.3050604@gherzan.ro> <1323641532.2731.5.camel@ted> <4EE68351.5090600@gherzan.ro> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: sv, en, de X-GPG-Fingerprint: 5AF0 B2E9 78FE 9D75 D110 6F8F 3E31 84D7 920E 938C X-GPG-Key-Id: 0x920E938C X-GPG-Keyserver: hkp://keys.gnupg.net Organization: ChargeStorm AB User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-GFI-SMTP-Submission: 1 Subject: Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:40:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline * Foinel [111213 10:19]: > So for example, in the situation when I have a build from which I want > to exclude GPLv3 code from, but gnutls is added to the build as a > dependency of some package, and the licensing of gnutls is as follows: > LICENSE = "GPLv3+ & LGPLv2.1+" > LICENSE_${PN} = "LGPLv2.1+" > LICENSE_${PN}-xx = "LGPLv2.1+" > LICENSE_${PN}-bin = "GPLv3+" > LICENSE_${PN}-extra = "GPLv3+" > LICENSE_${PN}-openssl = "GPLv3+" > then my understanding is either don't include any code from gnutls as > it's double licence or just include the non GPLv3 rpms (the first and > second rpm). Am I right? Yes, it's OK to include the first two rpms, as they only should include files licensed under LGPLv2.1+. The last three rpm's needs to be avoided to get a GPLv3 free image. If any of the rpm's would have been licensed under "GPLv3+ & LGPLv2.1+", it would also have been fine to include that one in your image, as in this case, you're free to choose between the two licenses. Cheers, Anders > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > >> So as you can see here is checked every package. This variable, > >> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3, is defined in default-distrovars.inc as: > >> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc > >> gcc-runtime" > > most of them have exceptions along with gplv3 or are lgplv3/lgplv2.1 > > e.g. the gcc bits in there are gplv3 with GCC Runtime Library Exception > > _______________________________________________ > > poky mailing list > > poky@yoctoproject.org > > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky > _______________________________________________ > poky mailing list > poky@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky -- Anders Darander ChargeStorm AB / eStorm AB