<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Mark Hatle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mark.hatle@windriver.com" target="_blank">mark.hatle@windriver.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":9u" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">If that is the way we want to move forward, then my recommendation would be to<br>
add a new field for that.<br>
<br>
LICENSE-SRC = "source license list"<br>
LICENSE = "declared license for the expected output of the build"<br>
LICENSE_<package> = "The license for the items in this specific package"<br>
<br>
Where:<br>
<br>
LICENSE ?= "${LICENSE-SRC}"<br>
<br>
LICENSE_<package> ?= "${LICENSE}"<br>
<br>
I see a lot of potential work here, but I don't see the benefit though.<br>
<br>
I don't know of any cases where someone has gotten in trouble, or even<br>
questioned, when the build system has a slightly different license then output<br>
of the build. The GNU build tools are definitely the biggest example I can give<br>
here.</div></blockquote></div><br>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.<br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Christopher Larson<br>clarson at kergoth dot com<br>Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus<br>Maintainer - Tslib<br>Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics</div>
</div></div>