[Buildroot] Package license constraints
Thiago A. Corrêa
thiago.correa at gmail.com
Sun Mar 22 00:17:29 UTC 2009
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Markus Heidelberg
<markus.heidelberg at web.de> wrote:
> Grégory Romé, 20.03.2009:
>> Can I add a proprietary package to buildroot which could be redistributed?
> I think generally it's OK, otherwise we shouldn't allow building the
> commercial license version of Qt, for example.
I guess it depends on what you want to push. Qt is GPL, LGPL and
Commercial. It already made sense to have it before, having the
commercial support was just a matter of a few config changes. On the
other hand, we don't have any thing on buildroot that *requires* Qt
commercial, because it's proprietary code or something like that.
In general, proprietary code isn't shared at all, unless it's dual
licensed. If you mean a binary package, them I guess the answer would
be pretty much "No".
Not that we are open source zealots, but rather that it would just be
impossible to crosscompile and have other platforms use it at all. We
also would not like to host your binary packages for you and on the
top of that, it could most likely be something that is not generic
enough for many users to take advantage of that package, etc.
But hey, if you could describe your package a little more, what it is,
what it does, and what are the licensing terms, then we could be more
specific than this "maybe/probably" answer :)
Also, then you would have much greater chance to get a reply from our
maintainer with a final answer.
>> Generally, what are the license constraints?
> No idea.
Same here, so far we never had that question raised AFAIK. It could be
complicated if your licensing terms would not permit us from
redistributing it in the first place since we keep a mirror of the
packages to ensure things will keep working for some time after
release. Please be more specific.
Thiago A. Correa
More information about the buildroot