[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] docs/manual: document format for specifying licenses

[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] docs/manual: document format for specifying licenses

[Rahul Bedarkar]

Signed-off-by: Rahul Bedarkar <rahul.bedarkar@imgtec.com>
---
Changes v1 -> v2:
  - tweak commit message (added missing 'for')
  - use full sentences (suggested by Thomas Petazzoni)
  - don't standardize components (suggested by Thomas Petazzoni)
  - add missing 'the' before +or+ keyword (suggested by Thomas Petazzoni)
---
 docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt b/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt
index 1f9c7bb..47cd95b 100644
--- a/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt
+++ b/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt
@@ -387,7 +387,15 @@ information is (assuming the package name is +libfoo+) :
   Otherwise, describe the license in a precise and concise way, avoiding
   ambiguous names such as +BSD+ which actually name a family of licenses.
   This variable is optional. If it is not defined, +unknown+ will appear in
-  the +license+ field of the manifest file for this package.
+  the +license+ field of the manifest file for this package. +
+  The expected format for this variable must comply with the following rules:
+  ** If the package is released under multiple licenses, then +comma+ separate
+  licenses (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1+`+). If there is clear
+  distinction between which component is licensed under what license, then
+  annotate the license with that component
+  (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+ (programs), LGPLv2.1+ (libraries)`+).
+  ** If the package is dual licensed, then separate licenses with the +or+
+  keyword (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = AFLv2.1 or GPLv2+`+).
 
 * +LIBFOO_LICENSE_FILES+ is a space-separated list of files in the package
   tarball that contain the license(s) under which the package is released.
-- 
1.9.1

[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] docs/manual: document format for specifying licenses

[Rahul Bedarkar]

Hi all,

On Monday 25 January 2016 10:35 AM, Rahul Bedarkar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Rahul Bedarkar <rahul.bedarkar@imgtec.com>
> ---
> Changes v1 -> v2:
>    - tweak commit message (added missing 'for')
>    - use full sentences (suggested by Thomas Petazzoni)
>    - don't standardize components (suggested by Thomas Petazzoni)
>    - add missing 'the' before +or+ keyword (suggested by Thomas Petazzoni)
> ---
>   docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt | 10 +++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt b/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt
> index 1f9c7bb..47cd95b 100644
> --- a/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt
> +++ b/docs/manual/adding-packages-generic.txt
> @@ -387,7 +387,15 @@ information is (assuming the package name is +libfoo+) :
>     Otherwise, describe the license in a precise and concise way, avoiding
>     ambiguous names such as +BSD+ which actually name a family of licenses.
>     This variable is optional. If it is not defined, +unknown+ will appear in
> -  the +license+ field of the manifest file for this package.
> +  the +license+ field of the manifest file for this package. +
> +  The expected format for this variable must comply with the following rules:
> +  ** If the package is released under multiple licenses, then +comma+ separate
> +  licenses (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1+`+). If there is clear
> +  distinction between which component is licensed under what license, then
> +  annotate the license with that component
> +  (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+ (programs), LGPLv2.1+ (libraries)`+).
> +  ** If the package is dual licensed, then separate licenses with the +or+
> +  keyword (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = AFLv2.1 or GPLv2+`+).
>
>   * +LIBFOO_LICENSE_FILES+ is a space-separated list of files in the package
>     tarball that contain the license(s) under which the package is released.
>

Any comments on this ?

Regards,
Rahul

[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] docs/manual: document format for specifying licenses

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Rahul Bedarkar,

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:35:40 +0530, Rahul Bedarkar wrote:
> +  ** If the package is released under multiple licenses, then +comma+ separate

I found the wording "If the package is released under multiple
licenses" as potentially confusing, as it could be understood as the
dual licensing case. So I've changed that to:

+  ** If different parts of the package are released under different
+  licenses

Which I believe is clearer.

> +  licenses (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1+`+). If there is clear
> +  distinction between which component is licensed under what license, then
> +  annotate the license with that component
> +  (e.g. +`LIBFOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+ (programs), LGPLv2.1+ (libraries)`+).

I've explicited: "annonate the license with that component between
parenthesis".

And applied to master. Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com