[OE-core] LICENSE_{X}-xxx is parsed?

[Flanagan, Elizabeth]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Chris Larson <clarson at kergoth.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Flanagan, Elizabeth
> <elizabeth.flanagan at intel.com> wrote:
>> The rest of the packages in the bb should be inheriting LICENSE if no
>> PN level license is set. Which obviously causes problems for the above
>> example.
>>
>> In a case like above you'd want to do either of the following:
>>
>> a. Call out each package's license individually (better but can be
>> painful for recipes with lots of packages)
>> b. Leave GPLv3 out of LICENSE (easier but not technically accurate) so
>> undefined package level licensing inherits the correct LICENSE.
>
> I wonder if a partially specified set of individual package settings
> should be identified by some sanity check (an explicit, rather than
> implicit, one, like recipe_sanity) as a potential bug / source of
> confusion.

It's something I've been thinking heavily about how over the past few
month. How to implement full package level license support without
requiring too many recipe changes. The current setup licensing moves
us in the right direction, without having to do too many recipe
changes, but there are some inadequacies in it and we may have to
address them sooner or later.

> I suspect most of the time it should be one or the other,
> either no individual package LICENSEs are defined, or they all should
> be.

I would tend to agree. One thing I think we may want to start
considering (even if it does make me cringe a bit) is that if we go
this route, we may want to support LIC_SRC_URI_${PN} as well. It means
quite a few recipe changes, but it yet another step in more accurate
license auditing.

-b

> --
> Christopher Larson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



-- 
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release