From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ww0-f54.google.com (mail-ww0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0DEE00306 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:09:51 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: yocto-www.yoctoproject.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; insecure key) header.i=@gmail.com; x-dkim-adsp=none (insecure policy) Received: by wgbdt13 with SMTP id dt13so9387501wgb.11 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:09:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=7MgwGjjIK7OLSC1l1Imm2bJpx0OFRip3z0XJSrFBaP4=; b=iVaAAEp7RJSy56HWP0sRpZ9MrADpufAcnS1Cn+EBszfeQeDkBuVlMGs5RbbUGBSypY rhzonI0Tv2iGpYXw2b4ttI0rLCXgM26GkzlDvCG8/KONr7G1hvpF+qnm+YWHIo90bhJc QIXY0Gn7KomChBmzwUdNsGVYDzyI9vWW7kYkA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.19.10 with SMTP id a10mr19011228wie.1.1324285788739; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:09:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.156.6 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:09:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2515584.y5UYPoyKeW@helios> References: <4EEB1EF8.7060204@gherzan.ro> <4EEB8267.6040500@linux.intel.com> <2515584.y5UYPoyKeW@helios> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:09:48 +0200 Message-ID: From: Foinel To: poky@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: License | "or" problem? 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: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:09:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 So if it's like Paul says, this seems to be a bug. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Friday 16 December 2011 09:39:51 Saul Wold wrote: >> On 12/16/2011 02:35 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: >> > As i know qt4 has double license. This means that everybody can choose >> > from GPLv3 and LGPLv2.1. This fact is reflected in bb file as: >> > >> > LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 | GPLv3" >> >> Also, looking at the current LICENSE in qt, it will need to be further >> defined on a package level as to how each package is licensed, so that >> when the manifest and audit occurs only the LGPLv2.1 bits are included. > > Where do you get the idea that there is a mix of licenses for Qt4? As far as I > am aware, the user is supposed to select either LGPLv2.1 or GPLv3, which is > exactly what the current value of LICENSE above means. > > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > > Paul Eggleton > Intel Open Source Technology Centre > _______________________________________________ > poky mailing list > poky@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky