On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:16:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 18-10-22, 19:49, Kent Gibson wrote:
You should add "categories" and "documentation" if you intend to publish to crates.io.
In order to add documentations, should I commit documentation (created with cargo) as well in libgpiod, so I get a link to it ?
That doesn't really work - you get a link to the files in github, not as a web site. You need somewhere that will host those generated files as a web site. You could do that with github-pages if you don't have other options. When I've done that I would commit the docs to a separate branch, just for the docs, and have github-pages host that branch.
If you eventually publish your crate to crates.io you get documentation on docs.rs for free - and you can skip the documentation key in that case too - it defaults to the appropriate page on docs.rs. I assume that would be the case long term - you just need to find someway to host them in the meantime.
LGPL is probably not appropriate here, as the binding code ends up being part of the binary - unless you plan to package it as a dynamic library?
The licenses of your dependencies are: $ cargo license (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016 (1): unicode-ident Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause (1): vmm-sys-util
This is the license used by the user crate for libgpiod, vhost-device, I am inclined to use this then, unless someone has an objection to it.
I'm wondering if now the python bindings include actual python code there may be a similar issue there - not sure how Bart intends to package that, or what licensing implications that may have.
In both cases Bart has the final call.
Cheers, Kent.
Apache-2.0 OR MIT (8): bitflags, cc, libc, proc-macro2, quote, syn, thiserror, thiserror-impl MIT (1): intmap N/A (3): gpiosim, libgpiod, libgpiod-sys
IANAL, but one or more of those would be more appropriate than either GPL or LGPL. You, Bart and linaro(?) will have to come to some agreement on which license or combination to go with - it depends.
-- viresh