luci-base: fix license #6987
luci-base: fix license #6987
Conversation
|
Is the license file in luci repo root also correct?
their license seems correct, which was what was inherited. Is the license in the source repo incorrect? |
|
The PKG_LICENSE in the Makefile refers to the LuCI code license, which is Apache 2.0. The same Makefile also references LuaSrcDiet which is under MIT license. Luckily both licenses are equally permissive so a quick fix might be simply setting PKG_LICENSE to |
|
@jow- I apologise for asking, but the package 'LuaSrcDiet' has been removed with commit b0d8fff from the LuCI feed and added with commit openwrt/packages@46d68b8 to the packages feed. To be correct the license of The See https://github.com/openwrt/luci/blob/master/LICENSE |
During the update of luasrcdiet with commit b5d5e5b the license was incorrectly changed from 'Apache-2.0' to 'MIT'. As the name implies, this is the basic package that must be installed on the target for the LuCI to work at all. So changing the license from 'Apache-2.0' to 'MIT' should not have happend, because this information belongs to the package 'luci-base' and to the 'luasrcdiet'. Therefore, with commit b0d8fff the 'luasrcdiet' was moved to its own package. However, it was forgotten to adapt the licence to 'Apache-2.0' again. Signed-off-by: Florian Eckert <[email protected]>
feckert
force-pushed
the
pr/20240313-luci-base
branch
from
5358002 to
cdede78
Compare
|
@systemcrash If it is simply possible, then I will cherry-pick the next few days |
Mention: @jow- @Ansuel
Description:
During the update of luasrcdiet with commit b5d5e5b the license was incorrectly changed from 'Apache-2.0' to 'MIT'.
As the name implies, this is the basic package that must be installed on the target for the LuCI to work at all. So changing the license from 'Apache-2.0' to 'MIT' should not have happend, because this information belongs to the package 'luci-base' and to the 'luasrcdiet'.
Therefore, with commit b0d8fff the 'luasrcdiet' was moved to its own package. However, it was forgotten to adapt the licence to 'Apache-2.0' again.
While we are at it, also set the 'PKG_LICENSE_FILES' to 'LICENSE' and 'NOTICE'.