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

[Mark Hatle]

On 9/3/19 1:59 PM, Wes Lindauer wrote:
> 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?

Unless the M4 file is generating/injecting code into the build(very few I've
seen do this), then I would say it's not under GPLv3 at all.  (And I wouldn't
have included GPLv3 in the LICENSE statement.)

But we need more consensus then just me saying so.

This may be a good question for the OE-TSC to ensure that we have clarification
on this issue, and it's not just me saying I think one way or another.

--Mark

> Wes L
> 
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:28 PM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org>
>     http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>