buildroot.busybox.net archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	Roman Passler <roman.passler@gmail.com>
Cc: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>, buildroot@buildroot.org
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] package/openocd: bump to 0.12.0
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 21:44:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ebc84b5-de98-bd18-a997-9d1dbfb3fdbd@mind.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230314233336.648cfa0f@windsurf>



On 14/03/2023 23:33, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello Roman,
> 
> Thanks for this new iteration. I still have some concern about the
> licensing, so I've added other maintainers in Cc.
> 
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:13:32 +0100
> Roman Passler <roman.passler@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/package/openocd/openocd.hash b/package/openocd/openocd.hash
>> index 91eb56d930..7f828172f1 100644
>> --- a/package/openocd/openocd.hash
>> +++ b/package/openocd/openocd.hash
>> @@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
>> -# From http://sourceforge.net/projects/openocd/files/openocd/0.11.0/
>> -sha256  43a3ce734aff1d3706ad87793a9f3a5371cb0e357f0ffd0a151656b06b3d1e7d  openocd-0.11.0.tar.bz2
>> -sha256  8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643  COPYING
>> +# From http://sourceforge.net/projects/openocd/files/openocd/0.12.0/
>> +sha256  af254788be98861f2bd9103fe6e60a774ec96a8c374744eef9197f6043075afa  openocd-0.12.0.tar.bz2
>> +sha256  1b8f7e37ee5afbbf95c2a4d62b12b25232e29538692663b434318503a9a88419  COPYING
>> +sha256  0a37155eb8bc0cb94477a0cae4f030e39da9317374e8a9f597e9229fd09aff78  LICENSES/license-rules.txt
>> +sha256  034da732b4f3079b8783fff756613c1cff89dec5ac80c5cdd90532b7539922a1  LICENSES/exceptions/eCos-exception-2.0
>> +sha256  f3ba76203a7b6993db31f987559cc4c621ae1ff78119ced2a669756c2c5fd3b1  LICENSES/preferred/BSD-1-Clause
>> +sha256  6313108c23efffa36948f8b2cff1560a5935373b527b0e1a837cc77e6ed1bacd  LICENSES/preferred/BSD-2-Clause
>> +sha256  1483f15e9fddc73b5df0acab1c42d21ecd0bf6ade8a79179fb90c09f13d03dcd  LICENSES/preferred/BSD-2-Clause-Views
>> +sha256  7a83b1aeb460458db9a4bd521d7f237c45b1650f6e60ea5ffc71e49472454de3  LICENSES/preferred/BSD-3-Clause
>> +sha256  5cf024f6e3611d5c6fb98748d1a0ad99b8cf9ffe46f2d60fa10c299cd29e0a75  LICENSES/preferred/BSD-Source-Code
>> +sha256  f35396f4095619f986736ca5e2976b313d381463a35c921c9ae677cc7eb83e28  LICENSES/preferred/GFDL-1.2
>> +sha256  76515be2d7334a1a038f775238c9a4c2b37e19514248e5eea0434cdfee526f9d  LICENSES/preferred/gfdl-1.2.texi.readme
>> +sha256  7d35bc44da7bb763022e3c2c32cfc0125dd222060bc50992420599d8e65f6c0a  LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
>> +sha256  323c587d0ccf10e376f8bf9a7f31fb4ca6078105194b42e0b1e0ee2bc9bde71f  LICENSES/preferred/MIT
>> +sha256  9a41b56594cd89743ca72f188318c9871661847074dd16497ae0c695fe3ab9c9  LICENSES/stand-alone/GPL-3.0
>> diff --git a/package/openocd/openocd.mk b/package/openocd/openocd.mk
>> index 37a06ca848..95a7fd3c2a 100644
>> --- a/package/openocd/openocd.mk
>> +++ b/package/openocd/openocd.mk
>> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>>   #
>>   ################################################################################
>>   
>> -OPENOCD_VERSION = 0.11.0
>> +OPENOCD_VERSION = 0.12.0
>>   OPENOCD_SOURCE = openocd-$(OPENOCD_VERSION).tar.bz2
>>   OPENOCD_SITE = http://sourceforge.net/projects/openocd/files/openocd/$(OPENOCD_VERSION)
>>   OPENOCD_LICENSE = GPL-2.0+
> 
> Roman: one thing that isn't good is that you are not adding the new
> license files in the OPENOCD_LICENSE_FILES variable, it makes the new
> hashes quite useless.
> 
> Arnout, Peter, Yann: the COPYING file states that overall the OpenOCD
> license is GPL-2.0+.
> 
> The doc is GFDL.
> 
> There are 3 files in contrib/ (apparently not installed in the
> Buildroot context) which are under GPL-3.0+.
> 
> So, do we list all license files in <pkg>_LICENSE_FILES ? Even if in
> fact we don't install anything that's under GFDL or GPL-3.0+ ? I'm
> particularly concerned by the GPL-3.0+ of course, which is seen by some
> companies as a red flag (for good or bad reasons, that's not the point
> here). If our installation of OpenOCD does not include GPL-3.0+ code, I
> think we should not mention that GPL-3.0+ code is distributed.

  Typically there should be a _LICENSE_FILES for every individual license 
mentioned in _LICENSE, plus an overall README-style file that (in broad strokes) 
specifies which license applies when. And in _LICENSE, we should only mention 
stuff that goes on the target (or in host/staging/images, actually).

  So, for this particular case, _LICENSE is still GPL-2.0+ because we don't 
install the doc or contrib. And _LICENSE_FILES should have COPYING and 
LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 (and possibly LICENSES/license-rules.txt as well, I 
don't know what that contains).

  Unless the GPL-2.0+ statement is not actually correct and there are source 
files that end up on the target that have a different license; those should then 
be added to _LICENSE and _LICENSE_FILES as well, of course.

  Regards,
  Arnout

> 
> Your opinion?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thomas
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-15 20:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-13 18:32 [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/openocd: bump to 0.12.0 Roman Passler
2023-03-13 21:54 ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot
2023-03-14  7:25   ` roman
2023-03-14  7:38     ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot
2023-03-14 12:13 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 " Roman Passler
2023-03-14 22:33   ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot
2023-03-15 20:44     ` Arnout Vandecappelle [this message]
2023-03-17  7:03   ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 " Roman Passler
2023-03-17  8:05     ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 " Roman Passler
2023-04-23  9:45       ` Yann E. MORIN
2023-04-11 20:39 [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 " Dario Binacchi
2023-04-15 13:29 ` Yann E. MORIN
2023-04-23  9:38 ` Peter Korsgaard
2023-04-23  9:57   ` Baruch Siach via buildroot
2023-04-23 10:44     ` Peter Korsgaard

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7ebc84b5-de98-bd18-a997-9d1dbfb3fdbd@mind.be \
    --to=arnout@mind.be \
    --cc=buildroot@buildroot.org \
    --cc=roman.passler@gmail.com \
    --cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
    --cc=yann.morin.1998@free.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).