From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 15:55:33 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] libcgicc: bump to version 3.2.13 In-Reply-To: <20140330113051.5c43cc69@skate> References: <1396135140-1402-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <1396135140-1402-2-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <20140330113051.5c43cc69@skate> Message-ID: <53382255.4090603@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Gustavo Zacarias, > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 20:19:00 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: >> Also add license files and docs license definition. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias >> --- >> package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk | 5 +++-- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks, with one minor change. > >> +LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+, docs: GFDL1.2+ > > I've changed this to the more traditional: > > LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs) > > Though I'm wondering if: > > * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL. Unless there is a good reason, we should the same style for all licenses. So, yes, we should use GFDLv1.2+. Or... We may sync with SPDX: GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1+, BSD-3-Clause, etc. > > * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license, > since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the > target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the > license of their documentation. I'm quite neutral on this point, but I would like at least a comment to make it clear that whoever added the license info has checked, not just missed the other license(s). Example: # The docs are GFDLv1.2+, but not installed LIBFOO_LICENSE = LGPLv3+ -- Luca