[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openembedded-core
Subject:    [OE-core] [PATCH] xz: Correctly specify GPL-3.0 with autoconf exception
From:       clarson () kergoth ! com (Christopher Larson)
Date:       2015-08-31 20:18:47
Message-ID: CABcZANkeKcXKumkxmMTwtw=wt4i5ja+brbeQEuLdLLLO4cVBcA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com>
wrote:

> If that is the way we want to move forward, then my recommendation would
> be to
> add a new field for that.
> 
> LICENSE-SRC = "source license list"
> LICENSE = "declared license for the expected output of the build"
> LICENSE_<package> = "The license for the items in this specific package"
> 
> Where:
> 
> LICENSE ?= "${LICENSE-SRC}"
> 
> LICENSE_<package> ?= "${LICENSE}"
> 
> I see a lot of potential work here, but I don't see the benefit though.
> 
> I don't know of any cases where someone has gotten in trouble, or even
> questioned, when the build system has a slightly different license then
> output
> of the build.  The GNU build tools are definitely the biggest example I
> can give
> here.
> 

I would say we should introduce LICENSE-SRC, alter archiver.bbclass to use
it, and set LICENSE-SRC ?= "${LICENSE}" instead. Much less work, but then
we have a variable we can append to if we run into a case like that which
we've discussed, without increasing work for the more common cases.
-- 
Christopher Larson
clarson at kergoth dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Maintainer - Tslib
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20150831/439aaea3/attachment.html>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]