picoTCP, barebox, and licenses

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:48:10 +0200
> Frederik Van Slycken <frederik.van.slycken at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 2014-06-05 21:36 GMT+02:00 Frederik Van Slycken
>> <frederik.van.slycken at gmail.com>:
>>> 2014-06-05 21:30 GMT+02:00 Robert Schwebel <robert at schwebel.de>:
>>>> Where is that in the wiki? IMHO it isn't correct, the toplevel COPYING
>>>> file says v2, which is also our intention.
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.barebox.org/doku.php#license
>>> 
>>> """
>>> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>> modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
>>> published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
>>> the License, or (at your option) any later version.
>>> """
>> 
>> A couple of other locations - I'm not sure if they're all up to date,
>> but these are results 3 and 4 when I do a google search for "barebox
>> license" :
>> http://www.barebox.org/documentation/barebox-2011.05.0/
>> http://www.barebox.org/documentation/barebox-2009.12.0/main.html
>> 
>> Number 2 was the wiki, already mentioned, and number 1 is wikipedia,
>> which does mention only gplv2 :)
> 
> I think Sascha can clarify this question.
> 
> AFAIR barebox itself is gplv2-only software, but we can add gplv2-or-later components into it.

For a legal point of view we do not care

Barebox is GPLv2 ONLY as it does contain quite a lot of file GPLv2 ONLY

and yes we DO can add GPLv2+ file into it

IIRC we already had this conversation on the ML before with Sascha & I over it and state that Barebox will be GPLv2 Only

It’s a statement for company that invest in Barebox that tomorrow the licence will not evolve
So they can have longterm plan with it (legal point of view)

Best Regards,
J.