overview-manual: fix and improve links to MIT and GPL licenses

From: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>

- The GPL license link was wrong (pointing to the LGPL)
- Using Wikipedia pages instead of the ones on opensource.org
  as they are much more informative and give the normal SPDX
  license identifiers that we use, instead of the short ones.

Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
---
 documentation/overview-manual/development-environment.rst | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Hi Michael,

On 4/25/22 19:10, Michael Opdenacker via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> From: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
> 
> - The GPL license link was wrong (pointing to the LGPL)
> - Using Wikipedia pages instead of the ones on opensource.org
>    as they are much more informative and give the normal SPDX
>    license identifiers that we use, instead of the short ones.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
> ---
>   documentation/overview-manual/development-environment.rst | 6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/documentation/overview-manual/development-environment.rst b/documentation/overview-manual/development-environment.rst
> index 19095fc116..e1572afc75 100644
> --- a/documentation/overview-manual/development-environment.rst
> +++ b/documentation/overview-manual/development-environment.rst
> @@ -620,9 +620,9 @@ license is distributed with that software. MIT is also compatible with
>   the GNU General Public License (GPL). Patches to the Yocto Project

I'm not sure "GPL license" is precise enough. Also, who said MIT is 
compatible with GPL? We don't have this authority and shouldn't be 
giving legal advice. However, we could point to:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
which lists the Expat and X11 Licenses (~MIT) as compatible with GPL

We could probably say compatible with GPL license*s*.

>   follow the upstream licensing scheme. You can find information on the
>   MIT license
> -`here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.opensource.org_licenses_mit-2Dlicense.php&d=DwIDAg&c=_sEr5x9kUWhuk4_nFwjJtA&r=LYjLexDn7rXIzVmkNPvw5ymA1XTSqHGq8yBP6m6qZZ4njZguQhZhkI_-172IIy1t&m=TicWvGiYNw0nULWTc5mxUoiBdqZwJ1Rj2Bw9SV3obzQZsFXC9ILPPiZM5dFUaK5N&s=zRY_pZJNQ375-UrrwwW4BMqiy7i5g5H2o1TIz17mvpM&e= >`__. You can
> -find information on the GNU GPL
> -`here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.opensource.org_licenses_LGPL-2D3.0&d=DwIDAg&c=_sEr5x9kUWhuk4_nFwjJtA&r=LYjLexDn7rXIzVmkNPvw5ymA1XTSqHGq8yBP6m6qZZ4njZguQhZhkI_-172IIy1t&m=TicWvGiYNw0nULWTc5mxUoiBdqZwJ1Rj2Bw9SV3obzQZsFXC9ILPPiZM5dFUaK5N&s=HH0RDJd36GiqPZNmcQSp63LVNdUmgRvWGHpiA31Nh2U&e= >`__.
> +`here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_MIT-5FLicense&d=DwIDAg&c=_sEr5x9kUWhuk4_nFwjJtA&r=LYjLexDn7rXIzVmkNPvw5ymA1XTSqHGq8yBP6m6qZZ4njZguQhZhkI_-172IIy1t&m=TicWvGiYNw0nULWTc5mxUoiBdqZwJ1Rj2Bw9SV3obzQZsFXC9ILPPiZM5dFUaK5N&s=a43ljijovG3lq_QtCp4_LXxcK_Pd0AiB6Fikq3Au-dE&e= >`__.
> +You can find information on the GNU GPL
> +`here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_GNU-5FGeneral-5FPublic-5FLicense&d=DwIDAg&c=_sEr5x9kUWhuk4_nFwjJtA&r=LYjLexDn7rXIzVmkNPvw5ymA1XTSqHGq8yBP6m6qZZ4njZguQhZhkI_-172IIy1t&m=TicWvGiYNw0nULWTc5mxUoiBdqZwJ1Rj2Bw9SV3obzQZsFXC9ILPPiZM5dFUaK5N&s=Id0NEiNB9EQog5SKyrbZwXHB-DuzkLTqodlJOinvFAA&e= >`__.
>   

I would rather point to:
https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
and
...
well.. probably
https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-only.html
https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html
https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-only.html
https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-or-later.html
? (there's also GPL-1.0-only and GPL-1.0-or-later but I'm not sure it's 
worth mentioning considering I have yet to see many projects using that one?

Which are giving the actual content of the license, without any 
interpretation which should be left to lawyers to figure out?

Cheers,
Quentin