From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 0234AE00ADD; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:50:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.85.213.174 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.213.174 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mail-yb0-f174.google.com (mail-yb0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6356EE00A9B for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id l201so5694341ybf.0 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:50:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aTUuji5eDneBzOWzAh7S4Pye/Ntvm3/q0Wds5MhNRqY=; b=EZY9MF0qGhiXnsVmHMcLGRvsdc/aNcZ+laMMYHcc89ERTxSk1DMfIFuIV3H9brhtSe bK7FMcurgYUkw1C0w6wS/xQ2XliQvgcfWOHvAcixYM9l5T1rehokB759I6VociQixUyD ceg8fg7mjEGVr+OuYxUlhYwbqsbIwy4js+jCPay0ZsWKwMy9PYzohfno0FXOD74pPNsv CF5oGdLJOzPhSncGlxkrU0MvveL0ERbOoGW5TeEPJMDs0vICUjBW6RYjU1O+G8W28N8N FuZKjSrB4Z5dBjta9lb4pHJ7DKHTI2lkwzuqCED/f2wCxzPOCyD5N5itzfxyGvalGO1V Q9TQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aTUuji5eDneBzOWzAh7S4Pye/Ntvm3/q0Wds5MhNRqY=; b=W4+Sn0BCKJ2ylvxALu/AqUC7p1X/3diM26uN4elhyA/iWtNioNqs9iSMo2tZLyjBeR vRN7BrjirvnROzP6azOfPIRB3vR9BG9lZniUKWy2axTpXBzwdGHPdhSyyrhy+pff7zGZ CdaoRbeRi7kssfF1LvXQr8KwJn4HFJQY8kYsCi5CNoymoA4f805DYaPzlBZeeATwtazw j+ZwnveBmgwYUHkzwy39K1Rff+Hm3deq8nFQePz6y6IeALBQXN8zqwfmwJYAKYV3hCUz 6/U1brLUpHkJDJIsml1s9XgnFnHfniXrKEtuMuMS+yhx0ueYEonw7nBK4kPFkEagECbC X0eg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4K9hoDVSBdpxlrVt30rDe0Kq2rgVhM14MmOR+sv8hHZx+Z3FIjslcOI8bnToa9LJmFymTYHeQZJ/AH4/4m X-Received: by 10.37.177.162 with SMTP id h34mr8064766ybj.68.1491994235200; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:50:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.121.75 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:50:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1971160.7GEiT5quOD@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1971160.7GEiT5quOD@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Jussi Kukkonen Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:50:04 +0300 Message-ID: To: Paul Eggleton Cc: Yocto Project Subject: Re: Relicensing an Apache-licensed recipe as MIT X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:50:38 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045eb120657ba4054cf5fa70 --f403045eb120657ba4054cf5fa70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 12 April 2017 at 12:54, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Wednesday, 12 April 2017 7:14:00 PM NZST Jussi Kukkonen wrote: > > On 11 April 2017 at 23:52, Martin Kelly wrote: > > > I'm thinking about integrating the open-vm-tools recipe from > openswitch[1] > > > into openembedded (it massively improves the performance of VMWare > guests) > > > but first I have a question about licensing. The openswitch repository > is > > > Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers are all MIT licensed. I'm > > > not > > > a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Apache license is a > superset of > > > the MIT license (it includes a patent clause that the MIT license > lacks), > > > and therefore MIT code can be relicensed as Apache but not the other > way > > > around. > > > > The license of the layer refers to the licensing of the recipe files > > themselves: the source code licenses of the projects the recipes fetch > and > > build are another thing. As long as the source code license is an open > > source one there should be no complaints about integrating into an > > openembedded layer. > > > > To be completely clear: The LICENSE variable in a recipe refers to the > > source code license of the project to be built and should be set based on > > the licensing info found within the version of source code that we fetch > > and build. The recipe files are licensed according to the LICENSE and/or > > COPYING files of the layer it is in. > > > > By the way, a quick search on layers.openembedded.org reveals this: > > http://git.openswitch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/ > tree/yocto/openswitch/me > > ta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools/open- > vm-tools_10.0.5.bb > > (it seems to think the correct license is GPL). > > This is muddying the waters somewhat - the LICENSE variable has nothing to > do > with this. We're only concerned with the license of the recipe itself. > Thanks Paul: I was indeed confused and did not understand this was about an existing recipe even though it was clearly explained in the original post. Sorry for the noise. Jussi --f403045eb120657ba4054cf5fa70 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 12 April 2017 at 12:54, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@l= inux.intel.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 April 2017 7:14:00 PM NZST Jussi Kukkonen wro= te:
> On 11 April 2017 at 23:52, Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote:
> > I'm thinking about integrating the op= en-vm-tools recipe from openswitch[1]
> > into openembedded (it massively improves the performance of VMWar= e guests)
> > but first I have a question about licensing. The openswitch repos= itory is
> > Apache-licensed while the openembedded layers are all MIT license= d. I'm
> > not
> > a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Apache license is a su= perset of
> > the MIT license (it includes a patent clause that the MIT license= lacks),
> > and therefore MIT code can be relicensed as Apache but not the ot= her way
> > around.
>
> The license of the layer refers to the licensing of the recipe files > themselves: the source code licenses of the projects the recipes fetch= and
> build are another thing. As long as the source code license is an open=
> source one there should be no complaints about integrating into an
> openembedded layer.
>
> To be completely clear: The LICENSE variable in a recipe refers to the=
> source code license of the project to be built and should be set based= on
> the licensing info found within the version of source code that we fet= ch
> and build. The recipe files are licensed according to the LICENSE and/= or
> COPYING files of the layer it is in.
>
> By the way, a quick search on layers.openembedded.org reveals= this:
> http://git.openswit= ch.net/cgit/openswitch/ops-build/tree/yocto/openswitch/me
> ta-foss-openswitch/recipes-extended/open-vm-tools/open-= vm-tools_10.0.5.bb
> (it seems to think the correct license is GPL).

This is muddying the waters somewhat - the LICENSE variable has noth= ing to do
with this. We're only concerned with the license of the recipe itself.<= br>


Thanks Paul: I was indee= d confused and did not understand this was about an existing recipe even th= ough it was clearly explained in the original post. Sorry for the noise.

Jussi
--f403045eb120657ba4054cf5fa70--