[OE-core] [PATCH 6/6] xz: Remove GPLv3 license checksum

[Wes Lindauer]

Mark,

In reference to "It typically does NOT include the license of things used
to build the software (such as makefiles, autoconf fragments, etc)".
Since the only file that is licensed under GPLv3 is a M4 macro, does that
mean the current patch is still valid? Shouldn't the GPLv3 license be
removed from this recipe?

Wes L

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:28 PM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com> wrote:

> On 8/27/19 1:04 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 01:50:14PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:46 PM Wes Lindauer <
> wesley.lindauer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Although xz has some files that are GPLv3 licensed, none of them get
> >>> packaged up, and therefore none of it ends up in the final rootfs.
> Since
> >>> there is no GPLv3 code in the final image, we don't want to include it
> >>> when we collect licenses, as that would give the incorrect impression
> >>> that the image contains GPLv3 code.
> >>
> >> We will be distributing this in src packages though. Maybe these files
> >> should be deleted before the build even starts.
> >
> > OE does licence tracking on binary packages, not on source packages.
>
> It tracks -both-.  Since MOST recipes and binary packages agree, people
> don't
> often know this.
>
> LICENSE is the -recipe source license-.  Nothing more nothing less.  It
> typically does NOT include the license of things used to build the software
> (such as makefiles, autoconf fragments, etc), but must include the license
> of
> any sources that are or may be used to construct binaries.
>
> LICENSE_<package> is automatically defined as LICENSE.  If a binary
> package has
> a difference license (which must ALWAYS be a subset of the recipe
> LICENSE), then
> it can be specified independently.
>
> See sysfsutils as an example:
>
> LICENSE = "GPLv2 & LGPLv2.1"
> LICENSE_${PN} = "GPLv2"
> LICENSE_libsysfs = "LGPLv2.1"
>
> recipe is made of of source code consisting of GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1.
>
> The LICENSE_${PN} is expected to be GPLv2, while the LICENSE_libsysfs is
> expected to be LGPLv2.1.
>
>
> The LIC_FILES_CHKSUM is supposed to represent the -recipe- source
> license.  If
> the component is used to build the binaries, then it needs to be listed
> (but
> only has to be listed once).
>
> If the component MIGHT be used, it needs to be listed.
>
> If the component will NOT be used, then it should not be listed (and it's
> advised to remove it from the source to avoid accidental usage...)
>
> --Mark
>
>
> > There are recipes that build binary packages with different licences
> > from the same sources.
> >
> > cu
> > Adrian
> >
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20190903/ba1bf1ea/attachment.html>